17IPL_ques.txt★★★ ＜第１７回知的財産翻訳検定試験【第８回英文和訳】＞ ★★★
≪１級課題 -知財法務実務-≫【解答にあたっての注意】
１．問題の指示により和訳してください。
２．課題文に段落番号がある場合、これを訳文に記載してください。
３．課題は２題あります。それぞれの課題の指示に従い、２題すべて解答してください。
問１．以下の英文を日本語に翻訳してください。
On the date the patent is actually issued, the official patent grant will bedelivered or mailed to the correspondence of record.
The date on which an application matures into a United States patent isimportant. On this date, the United States patent rights become enforceable
against infringers. The right of the patent owner to collect a reasonableroyalty for pre-issuance use of the patented invention pursuant to 35 USC
Section 154 does not vest until the same date.
On the issue date, certain rights of the patentee are foreclosed. For example,
the specification, drawing, and entire file history of an unpublishedspecification become publicly available. Thus, the patentee may no longer
asset claims based upon any trade secret information that may have beenpresent therein. After the issue date, the patentee may no longer file acontinuing application in the United States under 35 USC Section 120. The
patentee may also be foreclosed from filing corresponding application in someforeign countries. The issue date also marks the beginning of certain
important time periods. For example, the two-year period within which thepatentee may file a broadened reissue application under 35 USC Section 251
begins to run on the issue date of the patent. Patent rights are statutorily
presumed to have been validly granted as of the issue date and the patent is,on this date, deemed to have an ascertainable life over which the underlying
property may be depreciated for income tax purposes. Finally, after a patent
has issued, it may be amended, corrected, or modified only by way of acertificate of correction, disclaimer, reissue patent, or statutorily
unexamined patent.
問２．以下の英文は、米国連邦巡回控訴裁判所（CAFC）のある判決文から抜粋したものです。この英文を、２００字以内の日本語で要約してください。日本語要約の字数には、句読点も含めるものとします（ただし、文頭の字下げ、及び文中に意図せず混入したと思われる空白は字数に含めません）。なお、２００字の字数制限は厳密に適用することとし、字数超過は減点の対象とします。
Indefiniteness is a legal issue this court reviews without deference. Star
Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“Star Scientific II”). Section 112, paragraph 2, requires that thespecification of a patent “conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
regards as his invention.” “Because claims delineate the patentee’s rightto exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be
sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected
invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of thepatent.” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249
(Fed. Cir. 2008). A claim is indefinite only when it is “not amenable toconstruction” or “insolubly ambiguous.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software,ページ(1)

17IPL_ques.txt
Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citationsomitted). “In and of itself, a reduction of the meaning of a claim term intowords is not dispositive of whether the term is definite.... And if reasonable
efforts at claim construction result in a definition that does not provide
sufficient particularity and clarity to inform skilled artisans of the boundsof the claim, the claim is insolubly ambiguous and invalid forindefiniteness.” Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d
1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Star Scientific I”) (citations omitted).
“Thus, a construed claim can be indefinite if the construction remains
insolubly ambiguous . . . .” Star Scientific II, 655 F.3d at 1373; see also
Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265F.3d 1371, 1377-79 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (accepting the district court’s claim construction and separately
undertaking an analysis of the claims at issue to determine indefiniteness);
Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.,236 F.3d 684, 689-90, 692 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (same); Minn.Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics,Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (same).

ページ(2)