Back
 BLR  Vol.7 No.3 , September 2016
Determining Inventive Step or Nonobviousness for a Patent Requirement in View of the Formation Process of an Invention
Abstract: Regarding the criteria for determining the inventive step or nonobviousness (unobviousness) for a patent requirement of a patent invention, the conventional approach in the court decisions and examination standard of Japan, USA and EPO focused on acts, for example, whether or not the act to invent in the invention claimed in the application was “suggested” or “motivated” by the prior arts. On the other hand, Author regarded “conception based on a principle” and “establishment of a model” as the most important stage by analyzing the formation process of an invention. Especially, principles (typically in physics and chemistry) are important; furthermore, they are objective as the object of acts of the inventions. Therefore, I would like to propose a way in order to compare the applied invention with the prior arts. That is, we should set the “principle” and “ways of their utilization” as the object to analyze and judge their difference between the said invention and the arts. If the degree of the difference is large, an inventive step can be recognized. Because the problem to be solved does not consist of the contents of an invention, it should not be focused too much. In this article, the various factors in order to recognize differences with reference to principles and ways of their utilization were explained in a good order. Because the determination of the principles and their utilization seems to be made more objectively compared to that of acts, it can exclude hindsights. Up to now, this kind of discussion in this article has not yet been made.
Cite this paper: Kageyama, K. (2016) Determining Inventive Step or Nonobviousness for a Patent Requirement in View of the Formation Process of an Invention. Beijing Law Review, 7, 238-260. doi: 10.4236/blr.2016.73023.
References

[1]   Arthur, W. B. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. London: Penguin Books.

[2]   European Patent Office (2015). Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. Part G, Chapter Ⅶ/5, Problem-and-Solution Ap-proach.

[3]   Graham, v. John Deere Co (1966). 383 US 1, 148 USPQ 459.

[4]   Hitachi, Kasei Kōgyō K.K. v. Tokkyo-cho, (Chiteki-zaisan High Ct. 2009). Hanrei Jihō, 2043, 117-127, Hanrei Times, 1299, 272-282.

[5]   Hoechst Celenese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd (1997). EWHC 370 (Pat).

[6]   īmura, T. (2011). Hatsumei no Yōshi no Nintei to Gijutsuteki-han’i no Kaishaku, sarani Kintō-ron no Katsuyō. Patent, 64, 57-70.

[7]   īmura, T. (2014). Tokkyo-ken no Kintō-ron no Seihi ni Kansuru 2, 3 no Ronten. Patent, 67, 128-137.

[8]   Japan Patent Office (2015). Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan. Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 2, Inventive Step.
http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/1312-002_e.htm

[9]   K.K. Hokukon v. Tokkyo-chō. (Chiteki-zaisan High Ct. 2011). Hanrei Jihō, 2122, 118-127, Hanrei Taimuzu, 1383, 357-365.

[10]   Kageyama, K. (2015). Recognition of Inventor/Joint Inventors and Product-by-Process Claims-Based on Consideration of Categorization into Physical-Object & Material Inventions and Formation Process of Inventions. Berlin: Lambert Academic Publishing.

[11]   KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007). 550 US 398.

[12]   Pozzoli SPA v. BDMO SA (2007). EWCA Civ 588.

[13]   Sakai Kagaku Kōgyō K.K. v. Kawakami Sangyō K.K. (Chiteki-zaisan High Ct. 2009). Saikō- saibannsho Website, Saibanrei-jōhō, Chiteki-zaisan Saibannrei-shū.
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_jp/search7

[14]   Sewall v. Walters, G. (1994). 21 F3d 411.

[15]   Tokkyo-chō and Shadanhōjin Hatsumeikyōkai Ajia Taiheiyō Kōgyō-shoyūken Sentā (APIC), Tsukanaka, T. coop. (2011). Hatsumei no Shinposei.

[16]   Tsukahara, T. (2010). Tokkyo no Shinpo-sei no Handan-Kōzō. In Chiteki-zaisan-hō no Atarasii Nagare-Katayama Eiji Sensei Kanreki Kinen Ronbun-shū (pp. 431-432). Tokyo: Seirin-shoin.

[17]   United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (2010). Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr57526.pdf

[18]   Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tauber Marine (1985). RPC59.

[19]   X v. Debiofāmu Esu ā (Chiteki-zaisan High Ct. 2011). Saikō-saibannsho Website, Saibanrei-jōhō, Chiteki-zaisan Saibannrei-shū.
http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_jp/search7

[20]   Yoshifuj, K. (Kumagai, K ed.) (1998). Tokkyo-hō Gaisetsu (13th ed.). Tokyo: Yūhikaku.

 
 
Top