受験番号：16IPL003

This is a summary of litigation rescinding the trial decision.
1. Facts
The plaintiffs are the holders of a patent of an invention “Ventilator Filter andProduction Method Thereof” (hereinafter “present patent”).
The defendant demanded a trial for invalidation against the present patent, and
the Patent Office found Claim 1 of the present patent invalid (hereinafter, the finding isreferred to as “trial decision”).
The invention recited in Claim 1 (hereinafter, the invention of Claim 1 is referred
to as the present invention”) is“A ventilator filter comprisinga metal filter frame, anda nonwoven filter material which is bonded to the frame and covers an opening of
the frame,
the frame and the filter material being bonded by an aqueous emulsion adhesivethat contains a film-forming polymer”.
The trial decision stated that this invention could have been easily made based on
the invention of Patent Document 1 (the microfilm of Utility Model Application No. S58136320; hereinafter “invention A”), the statements in Patent Document 2 (JP H07188632 A), and the known arts described in Patent Document 3 (JP H11-129645 A),Patent Document 4 (JP S51-48408 A), and Patent Document 5 (JP 2000-12652 A).
The invention A mentioned in the trial decision is basically a filter cover for aventilation hood which comprises a flange, a wall, a frame at the bottom of the wall, anonwoven filter set to the frame by an adhesive, and a magnet which are integrally formedby metal foil. According to the findings in the trial decision, the points of agreement anddifference between the present invention and the invention A are as follows.
A. Agreements
Both inventions utilize an adhesive for bonding the frame and the filter.
B. Difference (Difference A)
The present invention utilizes an aqueous emulsion adhesive containing a filmforming polymer, whereas the invention A does not.
2. Holding of the Court
The trial decision states that: (1) the problems to be solved by the invention is“separately discarding (or facilitating separate discarding of) the filter frame and the filter
material after the use of the ventilation filter”, and this is a well-known problem; (2)Patent Document 2 shows an adhesive which is melted or swollen to peel by an aqueoussolution; and (3) a skilled person could have been motivated to use an adhesive which ismelted or swollen to solve the above problem, based on Patent Document 2.
The present invention, however, does not aim to solve such a problem, but
actually aims to “enable the filter frame and the filter material to be firmly bonded to eachother when the ventilation filter is used, but easily separated when discarded after the1use”, and to provide a means of “an aqueous emulsion adhesive containing a film-forming
polymer which usually bond the filter frame and the filter material firmly but shows
decreased adhesion in water such that the filter frame and the filter material can beseparated”. In contrast, the invention A neither teaches nor suggests the problem andthe means, and none of Patent Documents 3 to 5 suggests the problem to be solved by
the present invention either. That is, the purpose of the present invention is wrongly
determined in the trial decision. Also, none of the Patent Documents includes suggestionof applying the invention of Patent Document 2 to the invention A having a different
structure from the present invention.
Consequently, the trial decision includes errors in determining the problems to besolved by the present invention, and in determining that the present invention could havebeen easily made to solve the problems wrongly determined. The trial decision therefore
should be rescinded.

2