2004 年第１回知的財産翻訳検定
共通課題試験問題
検定問題
日本では、特許出願された発明が特許されるための要件を満たすか否かの判断は、時間的側面から云えば、その特許出願日を基準にされます。ですから、新規な製品について特許出願を済ます以前に、その製品を一般に公開すると、原則としてその製品についての発明は、新規性を失い、特許を受けることができなくなります。

Sample 1
In Japan, judgment as to whether aninvention disclosed in a patent application ispatentable is based on its filing date, in terms ofthe time standard. Accordingly, public disclosureof a new product before a patent application on theproduct concerned is finished normally causes thepatent application therefor to destroy itspatentability due to loss of novelty.

Sample 2
In Japan, whether or not an invention
disclosed in a patent application1 satisfies therequirements of patentability is determined
temporally, at least, by that patent application’s
filing date. Accordingly, in principle, public
disclosure of a new product before a patentapplication on the product concerned is completedcauses the invention pertaining to that product tolose its novelty, and become ineligible to receive
patent protection.

また、発明が特許されるための要件を、技術水準の側面から云えば、その発明に先行する公知技術と相違して新規性を有すること、
しかも、その相違が審査官から見て、僅かな違いではない、即ち、進歩性を有すると認定されることが必要です。そこで特許要件に問題となる先行する公知技術は、他人によってなされたものだけでなく、仮に発明者自身によって為されたものであっても、問題とされるのです。ですから、新規な製品を製造し販売しようとする企業は、その製品は特許出願手続が終わるまで、秘密を保つ注意と手配を確立すべきです。ただし、新規な製品の公開の場合、秘密を保持する義務のある人達だけに公開することは、その発明の新規性を失わない事柄と解釈されます。

In terms of the technical standard, thepatentability of an invention requires that theinvention possesses a novelty distinctive over thepublicized prior art, wherein the distinction should
be more than a minor difference from theviewpoint of the patent examiner, that is, theinvention must be found to have an inventive step.
The publicized prior art that negates thepatentability requirement includes not only theprior art made by others, but also that made by theinventor himself if it might be assumed so.
Taking these things into consideration, a company,
when going to produce and to start selling a newproduct, should establish an arrangement andattention to retain secrecy until a patent application
thereon has been finished. However, to make thenew product public to only those obliged to keep
the product secret will be regarded as activity that
does not cause the loss of novelty.

From the point of view of technicalstandards, patentability of an invention requiresthat the invention possess a novelty that makes theinvention distinctive from the publicly known art
preceding the invention. Moreover, in the eyes ofthe examiner, that distinction must be more than aminor difference, that is, the invention must be
found to have an inventive step.2 The prior,publicly known art that poses a problem forpatentability includes not only that which is madeby others but also even that which happens to havebeen made by the inventor himself3.
Accordingly, a company attempting tomanufacture and market4 a new product shouldtake steps to maintain the secrecy of the productuntil the filing of a patent application thereon iscompleted.5 However, showing the new productonly to those having a duty to maintain its secrecy
will not be regarded as an activity such as to cause
the invention to lose its novelty.

-1-Sample 1
検定問題
Noted above are matters regarding domestic
以上は日本国内出願を考えた場合のことですが米国への特許出願を考慮するときは米国 patent applications. Considering those in theでは、特許出願以前の事柄である発明の完成 U.S., significant is the date of completing theinvention that takes place prior to the patent
日が問題となります。即ち、日本は先願主義
application. Specifically, the U.S. has a first-toであるのに対して、米国は先発明主義をとっ invent system, unlike the first-to-file system inているからです。ですから、企業によっては、 Japan. For this reason, some companies require
研究者に日々の研究の進捗を記録することを researchers to record their research progress on a要求しています。しかし、この記録は後で改 daily basis, but this recording should be hand竄（かいざん）されることを防ぐ為に、手書 written to prevent later alterations. Thereby, it is
きで為さねばならず、ワープロは使用できな allegedly said that word processing is not
いといいう噂です。もしそうであれば、研究 allowable. If true, there is concern that such
would impose a great burden on researchers.
者には大きな負担となる懸念があります。

Sample 2
The foregoing pertains to domestic patentapplications. When considering patentapplications to the United States, the date ofcompletion of the invention6 that takes place prior
to the patent application is significant. In otherwords, whereas Japan’s is a first-to-file system, theAmerican one is a first-to-invent system.
Accordingly, some companies require researchers
to record the progress of their research daily.
However, it is alleged that this recording should behandwritten in order to prevent later alteration, andthe use of word processing is not allowed. If
true, it is feared that such a requirement will be anonerous burden on researchers.

または “an invention for which a patent application has been filed”でも可。
または “have inventive step”や“be nonobvious”としてもよい。ただし、アメリカのパテント・プラクティスにおいては“be nonobvious”の方がより一般に使われている。
3または “himself/herself”; “herself”等としてもよい。
4または “considering making and selling”; “contemplating manufacturing and selling”等。
5または “until patent prosecution is completed”とも考えられるが、そのようにした場合、原意から離れるとも解釈される。その理由は"prosecution"は最初の出願だけでなく、出願後の中間処理なども含むからである。
126

または “date of invention”（特許用語：着想（conception）、場合によってはその後の実施化（reduction to practice）を含む。
）でもよい。

-2-