Patent
Right

Date
Case number

March 27, 2023
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10029

Court

Intellectual Property
High Court, Third
Division- A case in which with regard to an opposition decision in which a patent was
revoked on the grounds that the patent does not comply with an inventive step, anenablement requirement, a support requirement, and a clarity requirement, theopposition decision was rescinded on the grounds that the patent can be recog nized
to comply with these requirements.
Case type: Rescission of Patent Revocation Decision
Result: Granted
References: Article 29, paragraph (2), Article 36, paragraph (4), item (i), and Article
36, paragraph (6), items (i) and (ii) of the Patent Act
Related rights, etc.: Patent No. 6721794
Decision of JPO: Opposition No. 2021-700030
Summary of the Judgment
1.

The present case is a suit against an opposition decision in which a patent withregard to an invention titled "ANTI-GLARE FILM" (number of claims: 4) was
revoked.
The Plaintiff, who is a patentee, made a correction of the scope of claims during
procedures of an opposition to a granted patent.

In response, the Japan Patent Officemade the opposition decision to allow the correction and to revoke the patentaccording to Claims 1 to 4.

Claim 1 after the correction (Present Invention 1) is "Ananti-glare film, comprising an anti-glare layer having a haze value ranging from 60%
to 95% inclusive, an internal haze value ranging from 0.5% to 8.0% inclusive, and astandard deviation of luminance distribution of an organic EL display ranging from 0
to 10 inclusive when adjusted so as to obtain image data as a gray scale image with an
8-bit gradation display and an average luminance of 170 gradations in a state where
the anti-glare film is mounted on a surface of the organic EL display with a pixel
density of 441 ppi."

Claims 2 to 4 (Present Inventions 2 to 4, Present Inventions 1 to

4 are collectively referred to as each of the present inventions) directly or indirectly
depended from Claim 1. (The haze value refers to a ratio of diffused light to totaltransmitted light.)
2.

The opposition decision revoked the patent on the grounds that the patent after

the correction does not comply with an inventive step, an enablement requirement, a
support requirement, and a clarity requirement.

However, this judgment rescinded

the opposition decision on the grounds that the patent after the correction compliesiwith all of these requirements.
This judgment found that a technical significance of each of the present inventions
is to maintain an overall haze value by an external haze value while suppressing aninternal haze value, and to ensure color reproducibility while obtaining good anti glare property, because when the internal haze of the anti-glare film to be mounted ona surface of a display is increased in order to suppress glare and to obtain anti-glare
property, color reproducibility is decreased due to light with low wavelength from thedisplay being scattered, etc.
Based on this, regarding an inventive step, this judgment held that even if cited
documents are combined, a person ordinarily skilled in the art cannot easily conceiveof making the internal haze value a value less than 20%, and that a person ordinarily
skilled in the art cannot easily conceive of a structure of Present Invention 1 , which is
the internal haze value ranging from 0.5% to 8.0% inclusive.

Then, this judgment

held that the opposition decision is erroneous in determining that Present Invention 1
could have been easily conceived of by a person ordinarily skilled in the art on thebasis of cited documents or well-known art.
Regarding the enablement requirement, this judgment held that it can berecognized that a person ordinarily skilled in the art could produce the anti-glare layer
according to each of the present inventions by at least a first embodiment without
undue trial-and-error, and that it can be recognized that an anti-glare film which canbe produced by the first embodiment from the statement in the description can beproduced by a second embodiment or a third embodiment as well.

Then, thisjudgment held that the opposition decision is erroneous in determining that each of
the present inventions cannot be deemed to be stated in the detailed description of theinvention in a manner clear and sufficient to enable a person ordinarily skilled in theart to work the inventions.
Regarding the support requirement, this judgment held that the recitation of thescope of claims complies with the support requirement on the grounds that a person
ordinarily skilled in the art can understand from the statement in the description thateach of the present inventions can solve its problem and that the anti -glare film
according to each of the present inventions can be produced by the first embodiment.
Then, this judgment held that the opposition decision is erroneous in determining thateach of the present inventions cannot be deemed to be stated in the detailed
description of the invention.
Regarding the clarity requirement, this judgment held as follows: the conditions
which can be set for measuring the luminance distribution in each of the presentiiinventions can be deemed to include restrictions of setting the condition such thatmeasurement results for the same anti-glare film do not vary and become constant,and setting the condition such that a deviation from glare a user perceives on a display
does not become significant and such that when a user perceives less glare, thestandard deviation of the luminance distribution becomes small; it is inferred that aperson ordinarily skilled in the art would perform the measurement by setting theconditions within a reasonable range under these restrictions; taking into
consideration the statement in the description and the drawings attached to the written
application, and based on common general technical knowledge of a person ordinarily
skilled in the art at the time of filing the application, the recitation of Claim 1 in thescope of claims of the present patent (Present Invention 1) cannot be deemed to be sounclear that the recitation is unreasonably prejudicial to interests of a third party; theinventions for which the patent in sought is clear; and the recitation of Claims 2 to 4
(Present Inventions 2 to 4) is also clear.

Then, this judgment held that the opposition

decision is erroneous in determining that each of the present inventions cannot be
deemed to be clear.

iii

Judgment rendered on March 27, 2023
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10029 Case of seeking rescission of patent revocation decision
Date of Conclusion of Oral Argument: January 17, 2023
Judgment
Plaintiff: Daicel Corporation
Defendant: Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office
Main text
1. An opposition decision rendered by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on
Opposition No. 2021-700030 on March 14, 2022 shall be rescinded.
2. The court costs shall be borne by the Defendant.
Facts and reasons
No. 1

Claim
The same as the main text.

No. 2

Outline of the Case

1. History of Procedures, etc. at the JPO(1)Patent No. 6721794 (title of the invention "ANTI-GLARE FILM"; number ofclaims: 4; hereinafter referred to as the "Present Patent") is an international
application which claims priority based on a patent application (Patent Application No.
2017-151494) filed on August 4, 2017 (hereinafter, the description and the drawingsof the Present Patent will be referred to as the "Present Description, etc.").

Theestablishment of the Present Patent was registered on June 22, 2020, and the gazette inwhich the patent appears was issued on July 15 of the same year (Exhibit Ko 20).
(2)

With regard to the Present Patent, an opposition to a granted patent was filedon January 14, 2021 (Exhibit Ko 22).

The Japan Patent Office examined this case as

Opposition No. 2021-700030 (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposition Procedures of
the Present Case") and notified a notice of reasons for revocation dated April 7 of thesame year (Exhibit Ko 23).

The Plaintiff filed a written opinion dated June 9 of thesame year (Exhibit Ko 24).

The Japan Patent Office notified a notice of reasons forrevocation (advance notice of a decision) dated August 31 of the same year (Exhibit
Ko 25).

The Plaintiff made a correction by filing a written request for correction

dated November 15 of the same year (Hereinafter, a request for correction by filingthis written request for correction will be referred to as the "Request for Correction of
the Present Case," and the correction by filing the request for correction of the Present
1Case will be referred to as the "Correction of the Present Case." Exhibit Ko 21) andalso filed a written opinion dated the same date (Exhibit Ko 26).

The Patent

Opponent filed a written opinion dated December 24 of the same year (Exhibit Ko 27).
In the Correction of the Present Case, the statement "an internal haze value
ranging from 0.5% to 15.0% inclusive" in Claim 1 in the Scope of Claims is corrected
to read "an internal haze value ranging from 0.5% to 8.0% inclusive."

Claims 2 to 4

depend from Claim 1 and were thus corrected in conjunction with Claim 1 to becorrected.
Note that Cited Documents, etc. filed in the opposition procedures of the
Present Case are as follows.
Cited Document 1: Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2009-244465(hereinafter referred to as "Cited Document 1"; Exhibit Ko 1, the primarily citedreference)
Cited Document 2: Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2015 -172837(hereinafter referred to as "Cited Document 2"; Exhibit Ko 2)
Cited Document 3: Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2015 -196347(Exhibit Ko 3)
Cited Document 4: Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2014-85371(hereinafter referred to as "Cited Document 4"; Exhibit Ko 4)
Cited Document 5: Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2006 -113561(hereinafter referred to as "Cited Document 5"; Exhibit Ko 5)
Well-known Document A1: Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2015 172835 (hereinafter referred to as "Well-known Document A1"; Exhibit Ko 7)
The Japan Patent Office made an opposition decision whose conclusion is that
"It shall be allowed to correct the Scope of Claims in Patent No. 6721794 with regard
to Claims [1 - 4] after the correction as per the corrected Scope of Claims attached to
the written request for correction.

The patent according to Claims 1 - 4 in Patent No.

6721794 shall be revoked." on March 14, 2022.

(Hereinafter referred to as the"Decision of the Present Case," which is as shown in Attachment 1.)

The certified

copy of Decision of the Present Case was served on the Plaintiff on the 29th of thesame month.
(3)

The Plaintiff instituted an action of the Present Case for seeking a rescission of

the Decision of the Present Case on April 27, 2022.
2. Scope of Claims
The Scope of Claims after the correction of the Present Case is as follows(Hereinafter, each of the inventions according to Claims 1 to 4 will be referred to as
2

"Present Invention 1" to "Present Invention 4," corresponding to each claim number,and collectively referred to as "each of the present inventions." Exhibit Ko 21).
(1) Claim 1
An anti-glare film, comprising an anti-glare layer having a haze value ranging
from 60% to 95% inclusive, an internal haze value ranging from 0.5% to 8.0%
inclusive, and a standard deviation of luminance distribution of an organic EL display
ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive when adjusted so as to obtain image data as a grayscale image with an 8-bit gradation display and an average luminance of 170
gradations in a state where the anti-glare film is mounted on a surface of the organic
EL display with a pixel density of 441 ppi.
(2) Claim 2
The anti-glare film according to Claim 1, wherein the anti-glare layer
comprises a plurality of resin components and has a co-continuous phase structure
formed with phase separation of the plurality of resin components.
(3) Claim 3
The anti-glare film according to Claim 1 or 2, wherein
the anti-glare layer comprises a matrix resin and a plurality of microparticl es
dispersed in the matrix resin, anda refractive index difference between the microparticles and the matrix resin isa value ranging from 0 to 0.07 inclusive.
(4) Claim 4
The anti-glare film according to Claim 3, wherein a ratio G2/G1 between aweight G1 of the matrix resin in the anti-glare layer and a total weight G2 of theplurality of microparticles contained in the anti-glare layer is a value ranging from0.07 to 0.20 inclusive.
3. Abstract of Decision of the Present Case
(1) Request for Correction of the Present Case (Decision of the Present Case, No. 2)
The correction of the Present Case shall be allowed.
(2) Outline of Reasons for Revocation (Decision of the Present Case, No. 4)
A. Reason 1 (Inventive Step)
Each of the present inventions could have been easily made by a person
ordinarily skilled in the art on the basis of inventions described in Cited Document 1,
which is the primarily cited reference, and Cited Documents 2 to 5, which aresecondarily cited references or exemplify the well-known art, and was therefore madein violation of the provision of Article 29, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act.
B. Reason 2 (Enablement Requirement)
3

The Present Patent was granted for a patent application in which the statementof the Detailed Description of the Invention does not comply with the requirement
prescribed in Article 36, paragraph (4), item (i) of the Patent Act.
C. Reason 3 (Support Requirement)
The Present Patent was granted for a patent application in which the statementof the Scope of Claims does not comply with the requirement prescribed in Article 36,
paragraph (6), item (i) of the Patent Act.
D. Reason 4 (Clarity Requirement)
The Present Patent was granted for a patent application in which the statementof the Scope of Claims does not comply with the requirement prescribed in Article 36,
paragraph (6), item (ii) of the Patent Act.
(3) Determination by Panel of Administrative Judges (Decision of the Present Case,
No. 5)
A. Reason 1 (Inventive Step)(A) Invention Described in Cited Document 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cited
Invention.") (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(2))
The Cited Invention found by the Decision of the Present Case is as follows.
"An anti-glare hard coat film which is excellent in anti-glare property andimage clarity and in which sparkle is effectively prevented as well, wherein the anti glare hard coat film is obtained by: preparing triacetylcellulose film (thickness: 80μm) as a transparent plastic film substrate;
preparing an anti-glare hard coat layer-forming material by adding, per 100
parts by weight of the resin solid content of GRANDIC PC-1070 (hard coat resin
manufactured by Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc.; solid content: 65% by weight,
refractive index: 1.53), 0.5 parts by weight of the solid content of a leveling agent(manufactured by Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc.; trade name "GRANDIC PC 4100"; solid content: 10% by weight), 0.5 parts by weight of IRGACURE 184(photopolymerization initiator manufactured by Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Inc.), 30
parts by weight of acrylic resin microparticles (manufactured by Sekisui Kasei Co.,
Ltd.; MBX-8SSTN; size: 8 μm; refractive index: 1.49) as first microparticles whichmainly form surface asperities, and 2 parts by weight of silicone micropa rticles(manufactured by Toshiba Silicone Co., Ltd.; "TOSPEARL 145"; size: 4.5 μm;
refractive index: 1.43) as second microparticles which mainly adjust an internal haze
thereby to make a mixture, diluting the mixture with ethyl acetate so as to attain asolid content concentration of 50% by weight, and stirring the mixture for 5 minutes
using an ultrasonic cleaner;4

applying the anti-glare hard coat layer-forming material to the one side of thetransparent plastic film substrate by using a bar coater to form a coated film, whose
thickness is adjusted at this time so that a thickness of the anti -glare hard coat layer is
25 μm;
then heating it at 100°C for 1 minute thereby to allow the coated film to dry,
thereafter subjecting it to ultraviolet irradiation to perform cure treatment of thecoated film, thereby to form an anti-glare hard coat layer having a thickness of 25 μm,
wherein a haze value (%) is 60%, anti-glare property is AA, clarity is B, anddefinition (sparkle) is A at 106 ppi, A at 144 ppi, and B at 212 ppi in accordance withthe definitions mentioned below,
wherein the anti-glare hard coat film is to be mounted on a liquid crystal panel
with in-plane switching (IPS) mode having an average black luminance (cd) of 0.19
cd in accordance with the definition mentioned below.
(Haze Value)
With regard to a method of measuring a haze, haze was measured using hazemeter HR300 (manufactured by MURAKAMI COLOR RESEARCH LABORATORY
CO., LTD.) in accordance with haze (cloudiness) in JIS K7136 (Year 2000 edition ).
(Anti-glare Property)(1)

A black acrylic plate manufactured by MITSUBISHI RAYON CO., LTD. (2.0mmt) is affixed to a surface of an anti-glare hard coat film on which an anti-glare hardcoat layer is not formed by means of an adhesive thereby to eliminate reflection on
the back side.
(2)

The anti-glare property of each of the film samples prepared above wasvisually checked under an office environment where displays are generally used(about 1000 Lx).
Determination Criteria
AA: There is almost no image reflection.
A: There is image reflection, but effect on visibility is small.
B: There is image reflection, but no problem arises in practical use.
C: There is image reflection.
(Clarity)(1)

A polarizing plate having a smooth surface without asperities was mounted ona panel surface of a notebook type PC (manufactured by Sony Corporation, trade
name: VAIO VGN-SZ71B/B (13.3 inch, WXGA, 1280×800)).

An adhesive waslaminated on a surface of an anti-glare hard coat film on which an anti-glare hard coatlayer had not been formed, and affixed on the above-mentioned surface of the5polarizing plate, thereby being mounted.
(2)

Image clarity was visually checked in a dark place by displaying a generalimage on the notebook type PC.

Determination criteria are as follows.

A: The image blurs, but an effect on visibility is small (the image is clear).
B: There is blurring, but no problem in practical use (no problem in clarity inpractical use).
C: There is blurring, and visibility is significantly reduced (unclear and there isa problem in practical use).
(Definition (Sparkle))(1)

A polarizing plate of 185 μm is affixed to a surface of a transparent film

substrate on which an anti-glare hard coat layer is not formed, and then this is bonded
to a glass substrate.
(2)

The degree of sparkle of a film sample prepared on a mask pattern fixed on alight table was evaluated visually.

For the mask pattern, those with definition of 106

ppi, 144 ppi, and 212 ppi were prepared and determined sequentially.

The definitionof the mask pattern which was determined as A based on the following determination
criteria was recorded.
Determination Criteria
A: There is almost no sparkle.
B: There is sparkle, but no problem in practical use.
C: There is sparkle.
(Measurement of Average Black Luminance)
Black luminance at a polar angle of 60° was measured in increments of 1° at an
azimuth angle of 0° to 360° using "EZContrast160D" manufactured by ELDIM
Company, and an average value of the measurement was calculated to determine anaverage black luminance."(The statement "Definition (Sparkle)" in paragraph [0123] and [Table 2] of the
Present Description, etc. and the statement "Sparkle (Definition)" in paragraph [0096]
of the Present Description, etc. were unified into "Definition (Sparkle)" fordescription herein.)(B) Present Invention 1
a. Common Feature and Difference from Cited Invention(a) Common Feature (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(3)B(A))"An anti-glare film, comprising an anti-glare layer having a haze value ranging
from 60% to 95% inclusive."(b) Difference (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(3)B(B))
6

(i) Difference 1-1
In Present Invention 1, the "anti-glare layer" has "an internal haze value
ranging from 0.5% to 8.0% inclusive."

In contrast, in the cited invention, the"internal haze value" is unknown.
(ii) Difference 1-2
In Present Invention 1, the "anti-glare layer" has "a standard deviation of
luminance distribution of an organic EL display ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive wh en
adjusted so as to obtain image data as a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation
display and an average luminance of 170 gradations in a state where the anti -glare
film is mounted on a surface of the organic EL display with a pixel density of 441
ppi."

In contrast, in the cited invention, it is unclear whether the "anti -glare layer" issuch.
b. Determination (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(3)C)(a) Difference 1-1
Cited Document 2 describes an optical sheet which has an anti-glare property
having a haze value of 60% with sparkle prevented, and an internal haze of 5 to 30%
is preferable.

Thus, it is easy to set the internal haze of the cited invention having ahaze of 60% to 5%.
(b) Difference 1-2
The invention-defining matter "a standard deviation of luminance distributionof an organic EL display ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive when adjusted so as to obtain
image data as a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation display and an averageluminance of 170 gradations in a state where the anti-glare film is mounted on asurface of the organic EL display with a pixel density of 441 ppi" in Present Invention
1 does not clearly define the anti-glare layer (anti-glare film) as a product (The "antiglare layer" having "a standard deviation of luminance distribution of a display""ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive" varies depending on imaging conditions when
determining the standard deviation of luminance distribution of a display.).

Thus,

Difference 1-2 does not constitute a substantial difference.
Even if not so, based on Cited Documents 2 to 5 and well-known technicalmatters, in order that sparkle does not occur even in the combination with a "highdefinition panel" in the Cited Invention, it would have been easily conceivable for a
person ordinarily skilled in the art to constitute the "anti-glare hard coat layer" ("antiglare layer") so that the standard deviation of the luminance distribution of a displayof image data obtained when mounted on a surface of an organic EL display with apixel density of 441 ppi becomes small."7

(C) Present Invention 2
a. Common Feature and Difference from the Cited Invention(a) Common Feature (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(4)B(A))
Present Invention 2 and the Cited Invention are common in having the samestructure as the common feature of Present Invention 1 and the Cited Invention.
(b) Difference (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(4)B(B))
Present Invention 2 and the Cited Invention differ in the following Difference 2
in addition to Difference 1-1 and Difference 1-2 mentioned in (B)a(b) above.
Difference 2
In Present Invention 2, the "anti-glare layer" "comprises a plurality of resin
components and has a co-continuous phase structure formed with phase separation of
the plurality of resin components."

In contrast, in the Cited Invention, it is unclear

whether the anti-glare layer is such.
b. Determination (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(4)C)
It would have been easily conceivable to a person ordinarily skilled in the art tomake the structure of Present Invention 2 according to Difference 2 by adopting thestructure of the well-known anti-glare layer into the anti-glare hard coat layer ("antiglare layer") of the Cited Invention.
Regarding Difference 1-1 and Difference 1-2, the determination is asmentioned in (B)b above.
Therefore, Present Invention 2 could have been easily made by a person
ordinarily skilled in the art on the basis of the Cited Invention, and the technology
described in Cited Documents 2 to 5 or well-known technical matters.
(D) Present Invention 3
a. Common Feature and Difference from Cited Invention(a) Common Feature (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(5)B(A))
Present Invention 3 and the Cited Invention are common in the following
structure.
"An anti-glare film, comprising an anti-glare layer having a haze value ranging
from 60% to 95% inclusive, wherein the anti-glare layer comprises a matrix resin anda plurality of microparticles dispersed in the matrix resin."(b) Difference (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(5)B(B))
Present Invention 3 and the Cited Invention differ in the following Difference 3
in addition to Difference 1-1 and Difference 1-2 ((B)a(b) mentioned above) andDifference 2 ((C)a(b) mentioned above).
Difference 3
8

In Present Invention 3, "a refractive index difference between the
microparticles and the matrix resin" is "a value ranging from 0 to 0.07 inclusive."In

contrast, in the Cited Invention, the refractive index is not such (The refractive inde x
difference is 0.04 for the first microparticles, and 0.1 for the second microparticles.).
b. Determination (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(5)C)
The refractive index of the "second microparticles which mainly adjust aninternal haze" in the Cited Invention is as described in paragraph [0040] of Exhibit Ko
1.

Therefore, in the Cited Invention, it would have been easily conceivable to aperson ordinarily skilled in the art to make the structure of Present Invention 3
according to Difference 3.
Regarding Difference 1-1 and Difference 1-2, the determination is asmentioned in (B)b above.

Regarding Difference 2, the determination is as mentionedin (C)b above.
Therefore, Present Invention 3 could have been easily made by a person
ordinarily skilled in the art on the basis of the Cited Invention, and the technology
described in Cited Documents 2 to 5 or well-known technical matters.
(E) Present Invention 4
a. Common Feature and Difference from Cited invention(a) Common Feature (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(6)B(A))
The common feature of Present Invention 4 and the Cited Invention is the sameas the common feature of Present Invention 3 and the Cited Invention.
(b) Difference (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(6)B(B))
Present Invention 4 and the Cited Invention differ in the following Difference 4
in addition to Difference 1-1 and Difference 1-2 ((B)a(b) mentioned above),
Difference 2 ((C)a(b) mentioned above), and Difference 3 ((D)a(b) mentioned above).
Difference 4
In Present Invention 4, "a ratio G2/G1 between a weight G1 of the matrix resinin the anti-glare layer and a total weight G2 of the plurality of microparticles
contained in the anti-glare layer is a value ranging from 0.07 to 0.20 inclusive."In

contrast, in the Cited Invention, the ratio G2/G1 is not such.
b. Determination (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(6)C)
In the Cited Invention, making the structure of Present Invention 4 according to
Difference 4 is a design matter by a person ordinarily skilled in the art based onstatements / suggestions such as those made in paragraphs [0032], [0034], [0036],[0037], [0039], [0040], [0042], and [0053] of Exhibit Ko 1.
Regarding Difference 1-1 and Difference 1-2, the determination is as9

mentioned in (B)b above.
in (C)b above.

Regarding Difference 2, the determination is as mentioned

Regarding Difference 3, the determination is as mentioned in (D)babove.
Therefore, Present Invention 4 could have been easily made by a person
ordinarily skilled in the art on the basis of the Cited Invention, and the technology
described in Cited Documents 2 to 5 or well-known technical matters.
B. Reason 2 (Enablement Requirement) (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5,
2(2)B(D), C(E))
The Detailed Description of the Invention in the Present Description, etc. is notstated to the extent that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can understand by whatmeans the anti-glare layer of the second embodiment and the anti-glare layer of thethird embodiment, both of which satisfy the haze value, the internal haze value, andthe standard deviation of luminance distribution of a display defined in each of thepresent inventions, are achieved, taking common general technical knowledge into
consideration.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the statement of the Detailed Descriptionof the Invention is stated in a manner clear and sufficient to enable a person ordinarily
skilled in the art to work the each of the present inventions.
C. Reason 3 (Support Requirement) (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 2(3)A to
C)(A) With regard to the matter "a standard deviation of luminance distribution of anorganic EL display ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive when adjusted so as to obtain
image data as a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation display and an averageluminance of 170 gradations in a state where the anti-glare film is mounted on asurface of the organic EL display with a pixel density of 441 ppi" which defines theinvention in terms of action in Claim 1 of the Present Patent, the Detailed Descriptionof the Invention merely states a means of forming an asperity shape of a structure(net-like structure, irregular loop structure) composed of a plurality of long narrowprotrusions and indentations located between the adjacent long narrow protrusions on
the surface of the anti-glare layer as the first embodiment (paragraphs [0035] and[0036]) and a means of forming an asperity shape formed by microparticles having a
relatively uniform particle size and an average particle size set to a value ranging
from 0.5 μm to 5.0 μm inclusive on the surface of the anti-glare layer as the second
embodiment (paragraphs [0082] to [0084]).

Even in light of common technicalgeneral knowledge, it cannot be deemed that the content disclosed in the Detailed
Description of the Invention can be expanded or generalized to the scope of Present
10Invention 1 (to other means which achieve the above-mentioned standard deviation).
Even if the scope of the invention is specified to a means of forming a specif ic
asperity shape on the surface of the anti-glare layer, the Detailed Description of theInvention is not disclosed to the extent that a person ordinarily skilled in the art canunderstand how the specific asperity shape which achieves the above-mentioned
action is among asperity shapes which can be formed by means of blast processing as
in the third embodiment, and it cannot be deemed that the Detailed Description of theInvention can be expanded or generalized to the scope.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the statement of Claim 1 in the Present
Patent complies with the support requirement.

The same applies to Claims 2 to 4 in

the Present Patent.
(B) The matter "the anti-glare layer having" "a standard deviation of luminancedistribution of an organic EL display ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive when adjusted so
as to obtain image data as a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation display and an
average luminance of 170 gradations in a state where the anti-glare film is mounted
on a surface of the organic EL display with a pixel density of 441 ppi" stated as aninvention-defining matter in Claim 1 of the Present Patent is merely a quantitative
statement, which can be objectively determined using a measurement apparatus
without depending on sensory evaluation, into which the qualitative statement "cansuppress sparkle of a display," which is the problem to be solved by Present Invention
1, is rephrased.
Then, it cannot be deemed that Claim 1 in the Scope of Claims in the Present
Patent substantially states a means for solving the problem as a product, which can berecognized as being able to solve the problem of Present Invention 1 by a person
ordinarily skilled in the art.

Thus, it cannot be deemed that the statement of Claim 1

in the Present Patent complies with the support requirement.

The same applies to

Claims 2 to 4 of the Present Patent.
(C) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the inventions according to Claims 1 to 4
in the Present Patent are stated in the Detailed Description of the Invention.
D. Reason 4 (Clarity Requirement) (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 2(4)E)
With regard to the invention-defining matter "comprising an anti-glare layer
having a standard deviation of luminance distribution of an organic EL display
ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive when adjusted so as to obtain image data as a grayscale image with an 8-bit gradation display and an average luminance of 170
gradations in a state where the anti-glare film is mounted on a surface of the organic
EL display with a pixel density of 441 ppi" of Present Invention 1, it cannot be11understood how to uniquely set an imaging distance between an organic EL display
and a means of obtaining image data (imaging device) and an F-number of a lens in
the means of obtaining image data (imaging device) when the image data are obtained.
Then, the "anti-glare layer" ("anti-glare film") having "a standard deviation of
luminance distribution of a display" "ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive" in Present
Invention 1 will vary depending on the imaging distance between the organic EL
display and the means of obtaining image data (imaging device) and the F-number ofthe lens in the means of obtaining image data (imaging device).

Alternatively, eventhe same "anti-glare layer" ("anti-glare film") will sometimes fall within or will
sometimes not fall within the scope of Present Invention 1, depending on imaging
conditions.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Present Invention 1 is clear (oralternatively, Present Invention 1 is so unclear as to impose unforeseen disadvantages
on a third party.).

The same applies to Present Inventions 2 to 4.

4. Grounds for Rescission(1) Grounds 1 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step - Relevanceto Reason 1 for Rescission)
A. Grounds 1-1 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step of Present
Invention 1)(A) Grounds 1-1-1 for Rescission (Error in Finding of Difference between Present
Invention 1 and Cited Invention)(B) Grounds 1-1-2 for Rescission (Error in Determination Whether or Not
Difference from Cited Invention Would Have Been Easily Conceivable)
B. Grounds 1-2 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step of Present
Invention 2)(A) Grounds 1-2-1 for Rescission (Error in Finding of Difference between Present
Invention 2 and Cited Invention)(B) Grounds 1-2-2 for Rescission (Error in Determination Whether or Not
Difference Would Have Been Easily Conceivable)
C. Grounds 1-3 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step of Present
Invention 3)(A) Grounds 1-3-1 for Rescission (Error in Finding of Difference between Present
Invention 3 and Cited Invention)(B) Grounds 1-3-2 for Rescission (Error in Determination Whether or Not
Difference Would Have Been Easily Conceivable)
D. Grounds 1-4 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step of Present
12Invention 4)(A) Grounds 1-4-1 for Rescission (Error in Finding of Difference between Present
Invention 4 and Cited Invention)(B) Grounds 1-4-2 for Rescission (Error in Determination Whether or Not
Difference Would Have Been Easily Conceivable(2) Grounds 2 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Enablement Requirement Relevance to Reason 2 for Rescission)(3) Grounds 3 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Support Requirement Relevance to Reason 3 for Rescission)(4) Grounds 4 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Clarity Requirement Relevance to Reason 4 for Rescission)(omitted)
No. 4

Judgment of this court

1. Contents of Each of the Present Inventions(1) Scope of Claims
The Scope of Claims according to each of the Present Inventions is as stated in
No. 2, 2 mentioned above.
(2) Statement of the Present Description, etc.
The Present Description, etc. contain statements as shown in Attachment 2(Exhibit Ko 20).

Note that items such as "Background Art," "Problem to be Solvedby the Invention," and "Advantageous Effect of the Invention" in Attachment 2 aregiven according to arrangement by this judgment and may differ from the position of
the items in the Present Description, etc.
(3) Technical Significance of Each of the Present Inventions
According to (1) and (2) mentioned above, technical significance of each of the
Present Inventions can be found as follows.
Each of the Present Inventions relates to an anti-glare film which preventsreflection of external light onto a surface of a display (paragraph [0001]).

An anti-glare film is, for example, a film having an anti-glare layer in which asperities areformed on a surface by surface roughening, and such a film is mounted on a surface ofa display to scatter external light to thereby prevent reflection of the external lightonto the surface of the display (paragraph [0002]).

When an anti-glare film ismounted on a surface of a display or the like having high definition pixels, lighttransmitted through the anti-glare film from the display is refracted by asperities on13

the surface of the anti-glare layer, or the pixels of the display may appear to be
expanded due to a lens effect produced by the asperities on the surface of the anti glare layer, whereby sparkle on the display may be generated, which may make theimage difficult to see (paragraph [0003]).

Given this situation, for example, it is

known that microparticles with a relatively small particle size are dispersed in an anti glare layer to form fine asperities on the surface thereof, thereby intending to suppress
sparkle of a display (paragraph [0004]).

However, in the case where microparticles

are merely dispersed in an anti-glare layer, an anti-glare film could be colored such as
being tinged with a yellow tone, for example, and color reproducibility of a display
through the anti-glare film may be lowered (paragraph [0006]).

Therefore, aproblem of each of the Present Inventions is to provide an anti-glare film which is noteasily colored, has a good anti-glare property, and can suppress sparkle of a display(paragraph [0007]).

Each of the Present Inventions is an anti-glare film, comprisingan anti-glare layer having a haze value ranging from 60% to 95% inclusive, aninternal haze value ranging from 0.5% to 8.0% inclusive, and a standard deviation of
luminance distribution of a display ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive (Claim 1, paragraph[0008]), which maintains an overall haze value by an external haze value while
suppressing the internal haze value (paragraph [0009]).

By constituting the anti-

glare layer in this manner, even if the internal haze value of the anti-glare layer is notincreased, a good anti-glare property can be obtained, and light with a predeterminedwavelength entering the anti-glare film can be prevented from being scattered at awide angle, to thereby prevent the anti-glare film from being colored (For example,
low-wavelength light such as blue light is prevented from being scattered to thereby
prevent the anti-glare film from being colored as tinged with yellow.) (paragraph[0010]).
2. Statements in Cited Documents, etc.
(1) Cited Document 1
Cited Document 1 contains a statement as shown in Attachment 3, 1 (ExhibitKo 1).
(2) Cited Document 2
Cited Document 2 contains a statement as shown in Attachment 3, 2 (Ex hibit
Ko 2).
(3) Well-known Document A1
Well-known Document A1 contains a statement as shown in Attachment 3, 3
(Exhibit Ko 7).
3. Grounds 1 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive step - Relevance to14

Reason 1 for Rescission)(1) Grounds 1-1 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step of Present
Invention 1)
A. Grounds 1-1-1 for Rescission (Error in Finding of Difference between Present
Invention 1 and Cited Invention)(A) The Present Description, etc. state the following: even if the internal hazevalue of the anti-glare layer is not increased, by appropriately roughening the surfaceof the anti-glare layer to adjust the external haze value, a good anti-glare property canbe obtained, and in addition, light entering the anti-glare film can be inhibited frombeing scattered at a wide angle by microparticles in the anti-glare layer, and light witha predetermined wave length entering the anti-glare film can be prevented from being
scattered at a wide angle, to thereby prevent the anti-glare film from being colored(paragraph [0010]); and in order to suppress sparkle, by not only reducing theasperities of the anti-glare layer but also by increasing inclination of the asperities of
the anti-glare layer to make the asperities steeper and also by increasing the numberof the asperities, the anti-glare property can be improved while suppressing sparkle ofthe display (paragraph [0078]).

The Present Description, etc. state a relationshipbetween sparkle and the asperity shape.

However, the Present Description, etc. do

not clearly state a relationship between sparkle and the internal haze value.

Thus, ineach of the Present Inventions, it cannot be deemed that sparkle and the internal hazevalue are technically indivisible as one.
(B) The Plaintiff asserts the following: three optical characteristics are technicallyindivisible as one with each other, and among the three optical characteristics, theinternal haze value and the value of the standard deviation of luminance distributi on
pertaining to the degree of sparkle are technically indivisible as one with each other;and the findings by the decision of the Present Case; that is, the difference between
Present Invention 1 and the Cited Invention, were divided into Difference 1 -1
pertaining to the internal haze value and Difference 1-2 including the value of thestandard deviation of the luminance distribution indicating the degree of sparkle,cause a result of misjudging an inventive step, and these findings are erroneous (No. 3,
1(1) [Plaintiff's Assertion] A mentioned above).
In this regard, according to Table 2 in Cited Document 1, when a pixel density
is 212 ppi, the evaluation of sparkle is as follows: Example 1 is B (There is sparkle,
but no problem in practical use), whereas the evaluation of sparkle for Comparative
Example 9, which differs from Example 1 only in the number of added parts of thefirst microparticles, which mainly forms surface asperities, is C (There is sparkle),
15

and Example 2, which differs from Example 1 only in the number of added parts ofthe second microparticles, which mainly adjust an internal haze, is A (There is almost
no sparkle).

It is assumed that the added amount of the first microparticles and theadded amount of the second microparticles relate to sparkle, and it can be deemed tobe suggested that there is a relationship between the improvement of sparkle and thesecond microparticles which mainly adjusts the internal haze.

However, Cited

Document 1 states that when the weight average particle size of the firstmicroparticles which mainly forms surface asperities is smaller than a predetermined
range, a sufficient anti-glare property cannot be obtained and sparkle becomes larger(Cited Document 1, paragraph [0035]), but does not clearly state a relationshipbetween the second microparticles which mainly adjust the internal haze or theinternal haze value, and sparkle.

Even if the three optical characteristics relate to ashape / structure of the anti-glare layer, there is no sufficient evidence to recognizethat the internal value and the standard deviation of the luminance distribution whichindicates the degree of sparkle have such a close relationship as deemed to betechnically indivisible as one.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's assertion mentioned above is not acceptable.
(C) According to the foregoing, it cannot be recognized that the decision of the
Present Case is erroneous in finding that the differences between Present Invention 1
and the Cited Invention were divided into Difference 1-1 and Difference 1-2(Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 1(3)B(B)).

Grounds 1-1-1 for rescission is

unfounded.
B. Grounds 1-1-2 for Rescission (Error in Determination Whether or Not
Difference Would Have Been Easily Conceivable)(A) Cited Document 2 discloses the following: with regard to the prevention of
sparkle without resorting to an internal haze which may cause a reduction in
resolution, a proportion of surface asperities and a surface haze which generallyindicates an area having an angle of inclination of 5 degrees or more are set in a
specific range thereby to prevent sparkle and also to prevent a reduction in resolutionof ultra high definition display elements (Cited Document 2, paragraph [0008]); andby having a surface haze in a range which is neither too large nor too small, theasperity shape includes asperities with a small angle of inclination and asperities witha large angle of inclination in a mixed manner, and the presence of various angles ofinclination in the asperities makes it easier to prevent sparkle (Cited Document 2,
paragraph [0025]).

As a numerical range of the above-mentioned surface haze in arange which is neither too large nor too small, it is stated that the surface haze is 22 to16

40% and that an optical sheet having an intensity ratio of 1.0 to 4.0 inclusive is used.
It is also stated that if the surface haze exceeds 40%, the resolution will be reduced(Cited Document 2, paragraph [0026]).

In addition, it is stated that the degree ofasperities (surface diffusing element) can be more specifically expressed by
specifying the surface haze as well as specifying the intensity ratio (Cited Document 2,
paragraph [0029]).

The surface haze value specifies the asperity shape which istechnically indivisible as one with sparkle.

Thus, it cannot be construed that thestatement of Cited Document 2 suggests that sparkle is adjusted independently of thesurface haze value.

Then, based on the statement of Cited Document 2 that "theinternal haze is preferably 5 to 30%, more preferably 5 to 25%, and even more
preferably 10 to 18%.

By setting the internal haze to 5% or more, sparkle can beeasily prevented through a synergistic effect with surface asperities, and by setting theinternal haze to 30% or less, a reduction in resolution of ultra high definition display
elements can be prevented." (Cited Document 2, paragraph [0035]), Cited Document
2 cannot be deemed to suggest that the variation is adjusted by adjusting the internalhaze value to about 5% independently of the surface haze value.
Further, Cited Document 2 states that the surface haze is 22 to 40% in the
optical sheet and the (overall) haze is preferably 25 to 60% (Cited Document 2,
paragraph [0035]), whereas the (overall) haze value is 60% in the Cited Invention, andCited Document 1 states that the anti-glare hard coat film has an (overall) haze valueof 60% or more (Cited Document 1, paragraphs [0005] and [0042]).

Thus, the(overall) haze values of the Cited Invention and Cited Document 2 are common whenthe (overall) haze value is 60%.

In Present Invention 1, a value obtained bysubtracting the internal haze value from the (overall) haze value corresponds to theexternal haze value (surface haze value) (paragraph [0025]).

Thus, with regard to

the Cited Invention in which the (overall) haze value is 60%, the internal haze value
suggested by Cited Document 2 which states an optical sheet having a surface hazevalue of 22 to 40% is an internal haze value of 20 to 38% (between 60% - 40% = 20%
and 60% - 22% = 38%) which can be obtained when the (overall) haze value is 60%.
Then, even if the Cited Invention is combined with Cited Document 2, a person
ordinarily skilled in the art cannot easily conceive of setting the internal haze value toless than 20%.
Note that Well-known Document A1 also states that "the internal haze ispreferably 5 to 30%."

However, on the other hand, Well-known Document A1 also

states that "the surface haze is preferably 20 to 50%" (Well-known Document A1,
paragraph [0029]).

Thus, Well-known Document A1 does not suggest that sparkle is17

adjusted independently of the surface haze value.
(B) The Defendant asserts that since preventing reduction in resolution of display
elements is a well-known problem in anti-glare films, even in the Cited Invention
having a haze value of 60%, there is a motivation for a person ordinarily skilled in theart to set the internal haze value to 5% from the viewpoint of preventing the reduction
in resolution of display elements.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that a person

ordinarily skilled in the art who has read the statement of Cited Document 2(paragraph [0035]) and Well-known Document A1 (paragraph [0029]) could naturally
understand that, pertaining to the optical sheet, sparkle can be prevented through asynergistic effect with surface asperities by setting the internal haze to 5% or more,while a reduction in resolution of ultra high definition display elements can beprevented by setting the internal haze to 30% or less (No. 3, 1(1) [Defendant'sAssertion] B(B) mentioned above).
However, as mentioned in (A) above, Cited Document 2 and Well-known
Document A1 do not suggest that sparkle is adjusted independently of the surface
haze value.

Therefore, the Defendant's assertion mentioned above is not acceptable.

(C) As mentioned in (A) above, even if the Cited Invention is combined with
Cited Document 2, a person ordinarily skilled in the art cannot easily conceive ofsetting the internal haze value to less than 20%, and a person ordinarily skilled in theart cannot also easily conceive of a structure according to Difference 1-1 of Present
Invention 1 which is the internal haze value ranging from 0.5% to 8.0% inclusive.
Other than the above, there is no sufficient evidence to recognize that a person
ordinarily skilled in the art could easily conceive of the structure according to
Difference 1-1 of Present Invention 1.

Then, Present Invention 1 could not havebeen easily made by a person ordinarily skilled in the art on the basis of the Cited
Invention, and the technology described in Cited Documents 2 to 5 or well-known
technical matters.
Therefore, the decision of the Present Case is erroneous in determining that
Present Invention 1 could have been easily made by a person ordinarily skilled in theart on the basis of the Cited Invention, and the technology described in Cited
Documents 2 to 5 or well-known technical matters (Decision of the Present Case, No.
5, 1(3)C(E)).

Grounds 1-1-2 for rescission are well founded.

(2) Grounds 1-2 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive step of Present
Invention 2), Grounds 1-3 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step ofPresent Invention 3), Grounds 1-4 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive
Step of Present Invention 4)
18

As mentioned in (1)B(C) above, Present Invention 1 could not have been easily
made by a person ordinarily skilled in the art on the basis of the Cited Invention, andthe technology described in Cited Documents 2 to 5 or well-known technical matters.
In addition, since all of Present Inventions 2 to 4 depend from Present Invention 1 andare inventions in which Present Invention 1 is further restricted, Present Inventions 2
to 4 could not also have been easily made by a person ordinarily skilled in the art on
the basis of the Cited Invention, and the technology described in Cited Documents 2
to 5 or well-known technical matters.
Therefore, all of the decisions of the Present Case are erroneous in determiningthat Present Inventions 2 to 4 could have been easily made by a person ordinarily
skilled in the art on the basis of the Cited Invention, and the technology described in
Cited Documents 2 to 5 or well-known technical matters (Decision of the Present
Case, No. 5, 1(4)C(C), (5)C(C), and (6)C(C)).

All of Grounds 1-1-2, 1-3-2, and 1-4-

2 for Rescission are well founded.
4. Grounds 2 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Enablement Requirement Relevance to Reason 2 for Rescission)(1)

In order for the Detailed Description of the Invention to comply with theenablement requirement for an invention of a product, it can be construed that the
Detailed Description of the Invention is required to contain a statement to the extent
that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can make and use the product without
requiring undue trial-and-error on the basis of the statement of the Detailed
Description of the Invention and the common general technical knowledge at the timeof filing the application.
(2)

In the Present Case, it is not undisputed by the parties that each of the present

inventions can be worked through the anti-glare film according to the first
embodiment comprising an anti-glare layer having a narrow protrusion loop structureand having three optical characteristics.

However, each of the present inventions isrequired to comprise an anti-glare layer which satisfies three optical characteristics,
but that structure is not defined in the Scope of Claims, and it can be construed thatstructures other than the long narrow protrusion loop structure are also included ineach of the present inventions.

Given this situation, it will be determined whether or

not the statement of the Present Description, etc. can be deemed to include structuresother than the long narrow protrusion loop structure.
First, the Present Description, etc. state in paragraph [0034] that, as [Structureof Anti-glare Layer], "The anti-glare layer 3 of first embodiment has a phaseseparation structure of a plurality of resin components.
19

As one example, in the anti-

glare layer 3, a plurality of long narrow (string-like or line-like) protrusions areformed on the surface by the phase separation structure of a plurality of resin
components.

The long narrow protrusions are branched and form a co -continuous

phase structure in a dense state."

In subsequent paragraph [0035], it is stated that

"The anti-glare layer 3 manifests an anti-glare property by the plurality of longnarrow protrusions and indentations located between adjacent long narrow protrusions.
By providing the anti-glare layer 3 like this, the anti-glare film 1 has excellent balance
between the haze value and transmission image clarity (image clarity).

The surfaceof the anti-glare layer 3 has a net-like structure or, in other words, a plurality ofirregular loop structures which are continuous or partially missing by forming longnarrow protrusions in a roughly net-like shape," which is stated about a long narrowprotrusion loop structure, but, as the anti-glare layer of the first embodiment, thisstatement of paragraph [0035] cannot be found to deny phase separation structuresother than the long narrow protrusion loop structure.
Further, the Present Description, etc. state in the first embodiment that, in
addition to shapes consisting of only the co-continuous phase structure, anintermediate structure between the co-continuous phase structure and a droplet phasestructure (sea-island structure of an independent phase having a shape such as
spherical, perfectly spherical, disc-like, or ellipsoidal) can also be formed, dependingon the degree of phase separation (paragraph [0072]), and that, by forming fineasperities on the layer surface by phase separation, the haze value of the anti -glare
layer can be adjusted even without dispersing microparticles in the anti-glare layer(paragraph [0073]), and the Present Description, etc. can be deemed to suggest thatfine asperities which is not limited to the co-continuous phase structure is formed.
Furthermore, the Present Description, etc. state in paragraph [0134] that "In
Examples 1 to 6, an anti-glare layer 3 is formed using a phase separation structure as abasic structure."

However, it is not stated that all Examples are long narrowprotrusion loop structures, and from the photographs which were taken of the surface
shape / structure of the anti-glare film of Example 3 in Exhibit Ko 47(photomicrographs of anti-glare films of Examples 3 and 6), it can be found that anasperity shape which cannot be deemed as a long narrow protrusion loop structure isformed.

Thus, it can be found that, as the asperity structure of the first embodiment,

an asperity structure other than the long narrow protrusion loop structure can beproduced.

Moreover, there is no evidence demonstrating that as an anti-glare film inwhich an asperity structure other than long narrow protrusion loop structures isformed and which has three optical characteristics, only the asperity structure of20

Example 3 in Exhibit Ko 47 can be produced.
Thus, the anti-glare layer of the first embodiment includes an asperity structureother than the long narrow protrusion loop structure, and it can be recognized that aperson ordinarily skilled in the art could make the anti-glare layer, including such astructure, according to each of the present inventions which satisfies the three opticalcharacteristics without undue trial-and-error at least by the first embodiment.
Therefore, it can be recognized that the Present Description, etc. contain astatement to the extent that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can make and use theproduct without undue requiring trial-and-error on the basis of the statement of the
Detailed Description of the Invention and the common general technical knowledge at
the time of filing the application.
(3)

In this regard, the Defendant asserts the following: although each of the present

inventions includes not only the anti-glare film comprising the first structural antiglare layer but also the anti-glare film comprising the second structural anti-glare
layer and the third structural anti-glare layer, the Present Description, etc. merely
show the first structural anti-glare layer as the Examples; and with regard to thesecond structural anti-glare layer and third structural anti-glare layer, the Present
Description, etc. do not specifically state specific production examples andmeasurement results of three optical characteristics, etc., and do not provide anysuggestion on how asperities should be formed; and the structure asserted by the
Plaintiff as a structure to obtain the three optical characteristics is a superordinate
concept of the first structural anti-glare layer, by which the three opticalcharacteristics cannot immediately obtained; and thus, undue trial-and-error isrequired in order to produce the second structural anti-glare layer and the third
structural anti-glare layer which satisfy a numerical range of parameters of the three
optical characteristics (No. 3, 2 [Defendant's Assertion] mentioned above).
However, the Present Description, etc. do not state that an anti-glare film whichcannot be produced by the first embodiment is produced by the second embodimentand the third embodiment.

On the contrary, the Present Description, etc. state inparagraph [0079] that "Such asperities can be formed in the anti-glare layer by theabove-mentioned spinodal decomposition in the first embodiment, but by othermethods as well, such asperities can be formed in the anti-glare layer.

As in thesecond embodiment, for example, even in the case where a plurality of microparticles
are used to form the asperities on the surface of the anti-glare layer, when forming theanti-glare layer, materials are selected so as to strengthen repulsive interaction
between the microparticles and other resins or solvents, which causes moderat e
21

aggregation of the microparticles, and a distributed structure of steep asperities with ahigh number density can be formed on the anti-glare layer." and indicates that theasperities as in the first embodiment can be formed by other methods and thatasperities are formed by the second embodiment as one example.

In addition, thePresent Description, etc. state in paragraph [0079] that "Hereinafter, the anti -glare
layer in other embodiments will be described focusing on differences from the first
embodiment," and thereafter, the second embodiment (paragraphs [0080] to [0102])
and the third embodiment (paragraphs [0103] to [0115]) are subsequently described.
Thus, it is natural to construe that the third embodiment is one of "other methods" forforming the asperities obtained by the first embodiment.

Further, there is noevidence to support existence or aspects of an anti-glare film which each of thepresent inventions includes and which cannot be produced by methods other than thefirst embodiment.

Then, it can be recognized that an anti-glare film which can beproduced by the first embodiment can also be produced by the second embodimentand the third embodiment, and even if some of anti-glare films which can be producedby the first embodiment cannot be produced by the second embodiment and the third
embodiment, this does not negate that each of the present inventions can be workedby the first embodiment.
Note that even if some of the second structural anti-glare layer produced by thesecond embodiment and the third structural anti-glare layer produced by the third
embodiment have a shape / structure different from that of the first structural anti glare layer, and they do not satisfy the three optical characteristics of each of thepresent inventions, it merely means that they are not embodiments to work each of thepresent inventions, which does not negate the enablement of each of the present
inventions.
According to the foregoing, the Defendant's assertion mentioned above is not
acceptable.
(4)

Further, the Plaintiff asserts that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can

produce the anti-glare films of the second embodiment and the third embodiment
comprising the anti-glare layer having the three optical characteristics while
producing (reproducing) the anti-glare films of Examples 1 to 6 and checking andconfirming whether the anti-glare layer has the shape / structure stated in the Present
Description, etc. (paragraphs [0015] and [0078]) (No. 3, 2 [Plaintiff's Assertion]
mentioned above).
In this regard, just because the shape / structure of the anti-glare films of
Examples 1 to 6 are checked, it cannot be deemed to mean that an anti -glare layer
22having a similar shape / structure can be produced by the second embodiment or thethird embodiment.
as is.

Thus, the Plaintiff's assertion mentioned above is not acceptable

Even if some of the second structural anti-glare layer produced by the second

embodiment and the third structural anti-glare layer produced by the third
embodiment have a shape / structure different from that of the first structural antiglare layer, and they do not satisfy the three optical characteristics of each of thepresent inventions, it merely means that they are not embodiments to work each of thepresent inventions, which does not negate the enablement of each of the present
inventions, which is as mentioned in (3) above.
(5)

According to the foregoing, it can be recognized that the Present Description,etc. contain the statement to the extent that a person ordinarily skilled in the art canmake and use the product according to each of the present inventions without
requiring undue trial-and-error on the basis of the statement and the common generaltechnical knowledge at the time of filing the application, and it can be recog nized that
the Present Description, etc. are stated in a manner clear and sufficient to enable aperson ordinarily skilled in the art to work each of the present inventions.
Therefore, the decision of the Present Case is erroneous in determining that it
cannot be deemed that the Detailed Description of the Invention is stated in a manner
clear and sufficient to enable a person ordinarily skilled in the art to work the each of
the present inventions (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 2(2)B, C).

Grounds 2

for rescission are well founded.
5. Grounds 3 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Support Requirement Relevance to Reason 3 for Rescission)(1)

It can be construed that whether or not the statement of the Scope of Claims

complies with the support requirement should be determined by comparing between
the statement of the Scope of Claims and the statement of the Detailed Description of
the Invention, then examining: whether or not the invention stated in the Scope ofClaims is the invention stated in the Detailed Description of the Invention, and falls
within the scope where a person ordinarily skilled in the art can recognize that the
problem of the invention can be solved by the statement of the Detailed Description of
the Invention; or whether or not, even if it is neither stated nor suggested in the
Detailed Description of the Invention, the invention stated in the Scope of Claims
falls within the scope where a person ordinarily skilled in the art can recognize thatthe problem of the invention can be solved in light of the common general technicalknowledge at the time of filing the application.
(2) A. The statement of the Scope of Claims after the correction of the Present Case23

is as mentioned in No. 2, 2 above, and the statement of the Present Description, etc.
are as mentioned in 1(2) above.
B. (A) According to the statement of the Present Description, etc., it can be foundthat a person ordinarily skilled in the art can understand the following matters.
The problem to be solved by each of the present inventions is "to provide ananti-glare film which is not easily colored, has a good anti-glare property, and can
suppress sparkle of a display" (paragraph [0007]).
In each of the present inventions, even if the internal haze value of the anti glare layer is not increased, a good anti-glare property can be obtained byappropriately roughening the surface of the anti-glare layer to adjust the external haze(paragraph [0010]), and if the haze value ranges a value from 60% to 95% inclusive, agood anti-glare property can be obtained (paragraphs [0007] to [0009]).

In addition,

by not increasing the internal haze, light entering the anti-glare film can be inhibitedfrom being scattered at a wide angle by microparticles in the anti-glare layer, and thus
light with a predetermined wavelength entering the anti-glare film can be prevented
from being scattered at a wide angle to thereby prevent the anti-glare film from beingcolored (paragraph [0010]), and when the internal haze value ranges from 0.5% to15.0% inclusive, the anti-glare film can be prevented from being colored (paragraphs[0007] to [0009]).

Further, as a method of suppressing sparkle, by not only reducing

the asperities of the anti-glare layer but also increasing inclination of the asperities of
the anti-glare layer thereby to make the asperities steeper and also by increasing thenumber of asperities, the anti-glare property can be improved while suppressing
sparkle of a display (paragraph [0078]), and thus, the anti-glare film of an asperity
structure having a standard deviation of luminance distribution of a display ranging
from 0 to 10 inclusive can suppress sparkle (paragraph [0011]).

Therefore, each of

the present inventions having the three optical characteristics can solve the above mentioned problem.
(B) In addition, the anti-glare film having the three optical characteristics can beproduced by the first embodiment, as mentioned in 4(2) above.
C. According to the foregoing, with regard to the Present Patent, it can berecognized that by comparing between the statement of the Scope of Claims and thestatement of the Detailed Description of the Invention in the Present Description, etc.,
the invention stated in the Scope of Claims is the invention stated in the Detailed
Description of the Invention and falls within the scope where a person ordinarily
skilled in the art can recognize that the problem of the invention can be solved by thestatement of the Detailed Description of the Invention, and it can be recognized that24

the statement of the Scope of Claims complies with the support requirement.
Therefore, the decision of the Present Case is erroneous in determining that it
cannot be deemed that each of the present inventions is stated in the Detailed
Description of the Invention (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 2(3)C).

Grounds

3 for rescission are well founded.
6. Grounds 4 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Clarity Requirement Relevance to Reason 4 for Rescission)(1)

It is reasonable that whether or not an invention for which a patent is sought isclear is determined from the viewpoint of whether or not the statement of the Scope ofClaims is so unclear that interests of a third party are unjustly prejudiced, taking into
consideration not only the statement of the Scope of Claims but also the statement of
the description and the drawings attached to the application and based on the common
general technical knowledge of a person ordinarily skilled in the art at the time offiling the application.
(2) A. This will be examined in the Present Case below.

The value (sparkle value)of the standard deviation of the luminance distribution of the display where the anti glare film of each of the present inventions is mounted on the surface may varydepending on a combination and a weight ratio of resin compositions in a solution for
raw materials of the anti-glare layer or execution conditions, etc. of a preparation step,a formation step, and a curing step.

Thus, in producing the anti-glare film of each of

the present inventions, by changing each of the above-mentioned conditions to form
an anti-glare layer, and by measuring / understanding in advance the physicalproperties of the obtained anti-glare layer, an anti-glare film having targeted physicalproperties can be obtained" (Present Description, etc., paragraph [0067]).

Further, ineach of the present inventions, as a method of suppressing sparkle, by not only
reducing the asperities of the anti-glare layer, but also increasing inclination of theasperities of the anti-glare layer to make the asperities to be steep and also by
increasing the number of asperities, an anti-glare property is improved while
suppressing sparkle of a display (Present Description, etc., paragraph [0078]).
Furthermore, in each of the present inventions, it can be deemed that in setting each of
the above-mentioned conditions in order to increase inclination of the asperities of theanti-glare layer thereby to make the asperities steeper and also to increase the numberof asperities, by setting each condition so that a standard deviation of luminancedistribution of a display becomes a value ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive, an anti -glare
film having targeted physical properties is obtained (Present Description, etc.,
paragraphs [0008] to [0011]).

Thus, it can be deemed that the standard deviation of25

luminance distribution defines the asperity shape of the anti-glare film.
On the other hand, in the case where the manner of setting measurement
conditions is not appropriate in obtaining the above-mentioned standard deviation of
luminance distribution of a display, if the standard deviation of the luminancedistribution of a display measured using a film comprising the same anti -glare layer
may vary, then the standard deviation which is a measurement result may fall withinor outside a range of 0 to 10 inclusive even if the film comprising the same anti -glare
layer is measured.

However, it can be construed that a person ordinarily skilled in

the art would attempt to set the measurement conditions so that no variations occur inthe measurement results.

There is no evidence to demonstrate that it is impossible toset the measurement conditions so that no variations occur in the measurement resultsin obtaining the standard deviation of the luminance distribution in each of the present
inventions.

In addition, it is obviously meaningless to perform measurements undersuch a condition that a deviation from sparkle perceived by display users becomessignificant (for example, a condition such that even though it appears sparkle to users,
the standard deviation of the luminance distribution becomes small).

Further, thePresent Description, etc. also consider perception of sparkle by users' eyes in themeasurement of the luminance distribution (Present Description, etc. paragraph[0129]).

Thus, it cannot be construed at all that a person ordinarily skilled in the art

would measure the luminance distribution of each of the present inventions undersuch a condition that a deviation from sparkle perceived by display users becomessignificant.
Then, the conditions which can be set in measuring the luminance distribution
in each of the present inventions can be deemed to include restrictions of: setting thecondition so that measurement results for the same anti-glare film do not vary andbecome constant; and setting the condition so that a deviation from sparkle perceived
by display users does not become significant and that when users perceive less sparkle,
the standard deviation of the luminance distribution becomes small, and it can beinferred that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would perform the measurement by
setting the conditions within a reasonable range under these restrictions.

In addition,

when such conditions are set and the measurement is performed, there is no evidence
to demonstrate that the measurement results of the standard deviation of theluminance distribution cause significant differences.

Therefore, by specifying thestandard deviation of the luminance distribution, each of the present inventions cannot
be deemed to be so unclear that interests of a third party are unjustly prejudiced.
B. In this regard, the Defendant asserts the following: there are no measurement
26

methods and measurement conditions which unambiguously define the measurement
values of the three optical characteristics, and even though the value of the standard
deviation of the luminance distribution among the three optical characteristics varies
depending on the measurement conditions such as an object distance and F -number,such measurement methods and measurement conditions are not clear from thestatement of the Detailed Description of the Invention in the Present Description, etc.
or from the common general technical knowledge at the time of filing the applicationof the Present Patent; and even if the standard deviation of the luminance distribution
has been standardized as the JIS standard after filing the application of Present Patent,
it does not mean that the measurement conditions have been unambiguously fixed aswell, and even if the measurement method using S4 is stated in paragraph [0159] of
the Present Description, etc., the imaging distance and F-number are not clear, and it
cannot be deemed that general measurement methods and measurement conditions
according to Present Invention 1 are stated (No. 3, 4 [Defendant's Assertion]).
However, it can be inferred that even if the F-number and imaging distance are
not stated in the Present Description, etc., a person ordinarily skilled in the art, who
understands that a standard deviation of luminance distribution may vary as the Fnumber is changed, would attempt to set the F-number and imaging distance so thatthe measurement result of the standard deviation indicates stable values.

In addition,

there is no evidence to demonstrate that no matter what F-number value is selected,
the variation in the measured values of the standard deviation cannot be reduced.

On

the contrary, according to Exhibit Ko 24 (written opinion dated June 9, 2021 filed by
the Plaintiff in the opposition procedures of the Present Case) and Exhibit Ko 40(report dated May 13, 2022 prepared by an employee of the Plaintiff), it can beunderstood that when an aperture is "8," the standard deviation of the luminancedistribution (sparkle value, Sparkle Value) varies less with changes in the imaging
distance than when the aperture is "4" and "6".

Thus, it can be inferred that a person

ordinarily skilled in the art would select an F-number so that the variation inmeasurement results is small.
On the other hand, the larger the F-number, the darker the obtained image,which makes it difficult to set the image to a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation
display and an average luminance of 170 gradations.

Thus, there is also a restriction

on increasing the aperture of the film sparkle examination apparatus.

Further, whenthe measurement was performed by selecting the F-number so that the variation in themeasurement results is small and the appropriate average luminance is obtained, there
is no evidence to support that the standard deviation of the luminance distribution27

indicates significant variation.

Thus, the standard deviation of the luminancedistribution in each of the present inventions cannot be deemed to be unclear.
Note that Exhibit Ko 32 (Manual of Film Sparkle Examination Apparatus
manufactured by Komatsu NTC Ltd.) states in the section "Adjustment of Aperture""Start the measurement and adjust the maximum luminance so as not to exceed 255."
and "When a film is mounted, if the maximum luminance has exceeded 255, adjust
the aperture as well." (Exhibit Ko 32, page 7).

That is, the maximum luminance isadjusted so as not to exceed 255, which suggests that the aperture is adjusted so as toobtain image data as 8-bit (0 to 255) gradation display; that is, 256 gradation display
in each of the present inventions.

Thus, it is unnatural that the aperture is not

adjusted when photographs are taken using the sparkle examination apparatus statedin Exhibit Ko 32.

Nevertheless, only by adjusting the aperture, it may not be

possible to "adjust so as to obtain image data as a gray scale image with an 8 -bit
gradation display and an average luminance of 170 gradations in a state where theanti-glare film is mounted on a surface of the organic EL display with a pixel densityof 441 ppi."Thus, as stated in the Present Description, etc., a relative distance

between an imaging device and a display where a film is mounted may be adjusted to"the extent that there are no bright lines due to pixels or even if there is a bright line
due to pixels, the bright line does not affect the evaluation of the sparkle of thedisplay" (Present Description, etc., paragraph [0128]).

In addition, in order to"adjust so as to obtain image data as a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation
display and an average luminance of 170 gradations in a state where the anti -glare
film is mounted on a surface of the organic EL display with a pixel density of 441
ppi," it may be possible to alter an exposure time of an imaging device and theluminance of all pixels of a display (Present Description, etc., paragraph [0159]).
However, just because the Present Description, etc. do not state that the adjustment of
the F-number is performed, it can neither be construed that the adjustment of theaperture stated in the manual of the sparkle examination apparatus (Exhibit Ko 32) is
prohibited in adjusting the settings for measuring the standard deviation of theluminance distribution appropriately, nor can it be construed that a person ordina rilyskilled in the art does not perform the adjustment of the aperture.

Further, it is not

specifically clear how much the standard deviation varies depending on what specificF-number is set and whether the degree of the variation in the standard deviat ion
makes the Scope of Claims so unclear that interests of a third party are unjustly
prejudiced.
Therefore, the Defendant's assertion mentioned above is not acceptable.
28

(3) As mentioned in the foregoing, taking into consideration the statement of thedescription and the drawings attached to the application and based on the common
general technical knowledge of a person ordinarily skilled in the art at the time offiling the application, the statement of Claim 1 in the Scope of Claims in the Present
Patent (Present Invention 1) cannot be deemed to be so unclear that interests of a third
party are unjustly prejudiced, and the invention for which the patent is sought is clear.
The statement of Claims 2 to 4 (Present Inventions 2 to 4) is also clear.
Therefore, the decision of the Present Case is erroneous in determining that it
cannot be deemed that Present Invention 1 is clear, and the same applies to Present
Inventions 2 to 4 (Decision of the Present Case, No. 5, 2(4)E).

Grounds 4 forrescission are well founded.
7. Conclusion
According to the foregoing, all of Grounds 1-1-2, 1-2-2, 1-3-2, and 1-4-2 for
Rescission and Grounds 2 to 4 for Rescission are well founded.

The decision of the

Present Case contains illegality which should be rescinded.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim shall be granted, and the judgment is rendered
as mentioned in the main text.
Intellectual Property High Court, Third Division
Presiding Judge: SHOJI Tamotsu
Judge:NAKADAIRA Ken

Judge:TSUNO Michinori(Attachment 1 A copy of the Opposition Decision is omitted.)

29

Attachment 2 (Statement of the Present Description, etc., Exhibit Ko 20)(1) Technical Field"The present invention relates to an anti-glare film which prevents reflection of
external light onto a surface of a display." (paragraph [0001])(2) Background Art"An anti-glare film is, for example, a film having an anti-glare layer in whichasperities are formed on a surface by surface roughening, and such a film is mounted
on a surface of a display to scatter external light thereby to prevent reflection of theexternal light onto the surface of the display." (paragraph [0002])"In this regard, when an anti-glare film is mounted on a surface of a display or
the like having high definition pixels, light transmitted through the anti-glare film
from the display is refracted by asperities on the surface of the anti -glare layer, or the
pixels of the display may appear to be expanded due to a lens effect produced by theasperities on the surface of the anti-glare layer, whereby sparkle on the display may
be generated, which may make the image difficult to see." (paragraph [0003])"Given this situation, for example, as disclosed in Patent Document 1, it is
known that microparticles with a relatively small particle size are dispersed in an antiglare layer to form fine asperities on the surface thereof, thereby intending to suppress
sparkle of a display." (paragraph [0004])"However, in a case where microparticles are merely dispersed in an anti -glare
layer, the anti-glare film could be colored such as being tinged with a yellow tone, forexample, and color reproducibility of a display through the anti-glare film may belowered." (paragraph [0006])(3) Problem to be Solved by the Invention"Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide an anti-glare film
which is not easily colored, has a good anti-glare property, and can suppress sparkleof a display." (paragraph [0007])(4) Means for Solving the Problem"In order to solve the above-mentioned problem, an anti-glare film according to
one aspect of the present invention comprises an anti-glare layer having a haze value
ranging from 60% to 95% inclusive, an internal haze value ranging from 0.5% to15.0% inclusive, and a standard deviation of luminance distribution of a display
ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive in a state where the anti-glare film is mounted on asurface of the display." (paragraph [0008])"The anti-glare layer of the anti-glare film having the above-mentioned
30

structure maintains the haze value at a value ranging from 60% to 95% inclusive byan external haze value while suppressing the internal haze value at a value ranging
from 0.5% to 15.0% inclusive. (paragraph [0009])(5) Advantageous Effect of the Invention"By constituting the anti-glare layer in this manner, even if the internal hazevalue of the anti-glare layer is not increased, a good anti-glare property can beobtained by appropriately roughening the surface of the anti-glare layer to adjust theexternal haze value.

Therefore, for example, light entering the anti-glare film can beinhibited from being scattered at a wide angle by microparticles in the anti -glare layer.
Accordingly, light with a predetermined wavelength entering the anti-glare film canbe prevented from being scattered at a wide angle to thereby prevent the anti-glare
film from being colored (for example, low-wavelength light such as blue light isprevented from being scattered thereby to prevent the anti-glare film being colored astinged with yellow)." (paragraph [0010])"Further, the value of the standard deviation of the luminance distribution of
the display indicates a degree of variation of bright spots on the display and is anobjective indicator which can be used to quantitatively evaluate sparkle of a display.
Therefore, in the above-mentioned structure, sparkle of a display can be morefavorably suppressed while preventing the anti-glare film from being colored by
setting the value of the standard deviation to a value ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive."(paragraph [0011])"According to the present invention, it is possible to provide an anti -glare film
which is not easily colored, has a good anti-glare property, and can suppress sparkleof a display." (paragraph [0017])(6) Mode for Carrying Out the Invention"Hereinafter, each of the embodiments of the present invention is describedwith reference to the drawings.
(First Embodiment)" (paragraph [0019])"Figure 1 is a cross-sectional view illustrating a structure of an anti-glare film 1
according to a first embodiment.

The anti-glare film 1 is mounted on a surface of adisplay 16a of a display device 16 (see Figure 3).

The anti-glare film 1 comprises a

substrate film 2, an anti-glare layer 3, and an adhesive layer 4." (paragraph [0020])"In the anti-glare layer 3, the haze value is set to a value ranging from 60% to
95% inclusive, and the internal haze value is set to a value ranging from 0.5% to15.0% inclusive." (paragraph [0023])"The haze value can be appropriately set within the above-mentioned range, but
31

is more desirably a value ranging from 70% to 85% inclusive.

In addition, theinternal haze value can be appropriately set within the above-mentioned range, but ismore desirably a value ranging from 0.5% to 8.0% inclusive." (paragraph [0024])"The haze value in the present embodiment is a value measured by a method
conforming to JIS K7136.

The external haze value corresponds to a value obtainedby subtracting the internal haze value from the haze value.

The internal haze value

can be measured by coating the anti-glare layer 3 with a resin layer or the like oraffixing a smooth transparent film to the anti-glare layer 3 via a transparent adhesive
layer, thereby flattening the surface of the anti-glare layer 3 and then measuring thehaze value." (paragraph [0025])"In this manner, the anti-glare layer 3 of the anti-glare film 1 maintains thehaze value at a value ranging from 60% to 95% inclusive by an external haze value
while suppressing the internal haze value at a value ranging from 0.5% to 15.0%
inclusive.

By constituting the anti-glare layer 3 in this manner, even if the internalhaze value of the anti-glare layer 3 is not increased, a good anti-glare property can beobtained by appropriately roughening the surface of the anti-glare layer to adjust theexternal haze value.

Therefore, for example, light entering the anti-glare film can beinhibited from being scattered at a wide angle by microparticles in the anti -glare layer.
Accordingly, light with a predetermined wavelength entering the anti -glare film 1 canbe prevented from being scattered at a wide angle to thereby prevent the anti -glare
film from being colored (for example, low-wavelength light such as blue light isprevented from being scattered to thereby prevent the anti-glare film being colored astinged with yellow). (paragraph [0026])"Further, in the anti-glare film 1, the standard deviation of the luminancedistribution of the display 16a in a state where the anti-glare film 1 is mounted on thesurface of the display 16a (hereinafter also referred to as a sparkle value) is set to avalue ranging from 0 to 10 inclusive." (paragraph [0029])"The anti-glare layer 3 manifests an anti-glare property by the plurality of longnarrow protrusions and indentations located between adjacent long narrow protrusions.
By providing the anti-glare layer 3 in this manner, the anti-glare film 1 has excellent
balance between the haze value and transmission image clarity (image clarity).

The

surface of the anti-glare layer 3 has a net-like structure or, in other words, a pluralityof irregular loop structures which are continuous or partially missing by forming thelong narrow protrusions in a roughly net-like shape." (paragraph [0035])"The formation of the above-mentioned structure on the surface of the antiglare layer 3 prevents the formation of protrusions in a lens shape (sea-island shape).
32

Thus, light transmitted through the anti-glare layer 3 from the display 16a isprevented from being refracted by the asperities of the surface of the anti-glare layer 3,or the pixels of the display 16a are prevented from being seen as expanded due to alens effect produced by the asperities on the surface of the anti-glare layer 3, and thesparkle of the display 16a is suppressed.

As a result, even when the anti-glare film 1

is mounted on the display 16a having high-definition pixels, the sparkle of the display
16a can be suppressed to a high degree while ensuring an anti-glare property, andblurring of texts / images can be suppressed." (paragraph [0036])"Here, a refractive index of a polymer and a refractive index of a cured resin or
cross-linked resin produced by curing a curable resin precursor typically differ fromeach other.

In addition, refractive indexes of a plurality of types of polymers (a firstpolymer and a second polymer) also typically differ from each other.

The difference

between the refractive index of the polymer and the refractive index of the cured resinor cross-linked resin as well as the difference between the refractive indexes of theplurality of types of polymers (the first polymer and the second polymer) are, forexample, desirably a value ranging from 0 to 0.04 inclusive, and more desirably avalue ranging from 0 to 0.02 inclusive." (paragraph [0054])"The anti-glare layer 3 may contain a plurality of microparticles (fillers)dispersed in a matrix resin.

The microparticles may be any of organic microparticles

and inorganic microparticles.

The plurality of microparticles may contain a pluralityof types of microparticles." (paragraph [0055])"Examples of the organic microparticles include crosslinked acrylic particles
and crosslinked styrene particles.

In addition, examples of the inorganic

microparticles include silica particles and alumina particles.

Further, the refractive

index difference between the matrix resin and the microparticles contained in the anti glare layer 3 can be set to a value ranging from 0 to 0.2 inclusive as one example.
This refractive index difference is more desirably a value ranging from 0 to 0.15
inclusive, and still more desirably a value ranging from 0 to 0.07 inclusive."(paragraph [0056])"An average particle size of the microparticles is not particularly limited, andfor example, can be set to a value ranging from 0.5 μm to 5.0 μm inclusive.

Thisaverage particle size is more desirably a value ranging from 0.5 μm to 4.0 μm
inclusive, and still more desirably a value ranging from 1.0 μm to 3.0 μm inclusive."(paragraph [0057])"Note that the average particle size referred to herein is a 50% volume average
particle size according to the Coulter counter method (the same applies to the average
33particle size referred to hereinafter.).

The microparticles may be solid or hollow.

Itshould be noted that if the average particle size of the microparticles is too small, ananti-glare property will be difficult to achieve, and if the average particle size is toolarge, the sparkle of the display may become large." (paragraph [0058])"Here, a haze value and an internal haze value of the anti-glare layer 3, b*
value in L*a*b* color system of the anti-glare film 1, and a value of the standard
deviation of the luminance distribution of the display 16a having the anti -glare film 1
mounted on the surface thereof (sparkle value) may vary depending on a combination
and a weight ratio of resin compositions in a solution or execution conditions, etc. ofa preparation step, a formation step, and a curing step.

Therefore, by changing eachof the conditions to form an anti-glare layer, and by measuring / understanding in
advance the physical properties of the obtained anti-glare layer, an anti-glare film
having targeted physical properties can be obtained." (paragraph [0067])"When the co-continuous phase structure is formed and coarsening occurs inassociation with the progression of phase separation due to spinodal decomposition
from the liquid phase of the plurality of resin components, the continuous phasebecomes discontinuous, and a droplet phase structure (sea-island structure of an
independent phase having a shape such as spherical, perfectly spherical, disc -like, or
ellipsoidal) is formed.

Here, depending on the degree of phase separation, anintermediate structure between the co-continuous phase structure and the droplet
phase structure (a phase structure in a process of transitioning from the co -continuous
phase to the droplet phase) can also be formed.

After the solvent has been removed,a layer having fine asperities is formed on the surface." (paragraph [0072])"By forming fine asperities on the surface of the layer by phase separation inthis manner, the haze value of the anti-glare layer 3 can be adjusted even without
dispersing microparticles in the anti-glare layer 3.

In addition, since microparticles

do not have to be dispersed in the anti-glare layer 3, the haze value of the anti-glare
layer 3 can be easily adjusted while suppressing the internal haze value as comparedto the external haze value.

Note that the anti-glare layer 3 containing microparticles

can also be formed by adding microparticles to the solution in the preparation step,
but in this case, when the refractive index difference between the matrix resin and themicroparticles in the anti-glare layer 3 is large, the anti-glare layer 3 may be colored,
and therefore attention has to be paid." (paragraph [0073])"Here, as a method of suppressing the sparkle of the display 16a, it can beconsidered, for example, to reduce the asperities of the surface of the anti -glare layer,
but the anti-glare property of the anti-glare film may be reduced.
34

However, by notonly reducing the asperities of the anti-glare layer but also increasing inclination of
the asperities of the anti-glare layer thereby to make the asperities steeper and also by
increasing the number of the asperities, an anti-glare property can be improved while
suppressing the sparkle of the display." (paragraph [0078])"Such asperities can be formed in the anti-glare layer by the above-mentioned
spinodal decomposition in the first embodiment, but by other methods as well, suchasperities can be formed in the anti-glare layer.

As in the second embodiment, forexample, even in the case where a plurality of microparticles are used to form theasperities on the surface of the anti-glare layer, when forming the anti-glare layer,materials are selected so as to strengthen repulsive interaction between the
microparticles and other resins or solvents, which causes moderate aggregation of the
microparticles, and a distributed structure of steep asperities with a high number
density can be formed on the anti-glare layer.

Hereinafter, the anti-glare layer inother embodiments will be described focusing on differences from the first
embodiment." (paragraph [0079])"(Second Embodiment)
The anti-glare layer of the anti-glare film according to the second embodiment
comprises a matrix resin and a plurality of microparticles dispersed in the matrix resin.
The microparticles are formed in a perfectly spherical shape, but the shape of th e
microparticles is not limited thereto, and the microparticles may be formed in a
substantially spherical or ellipsoidal shape.

In addition, the microparticles areformed in a solid form, but may also be formed so as to be hollow.

When themicroparticles are hollow, the hollow part of the microparticles may be filled with airor another gas.

In the anti-glare layer, each of the microparticles may be dispersed

as a primary particle, or a plurality of secondary particles formed by aggregating aplurality of microparticles may be dispersed." (paragraph [0080])"The refractive index difference between the matrix resin and themicroparticles is set to a value ranging from 0 to 0.2 inclusive.

This refractive index

difference is more desirably a value ranging from 0 to 0.15 inclusive, and still moredesirably a value ranging from 0 to 0.07 inclusive." (paragraph [0081])"In this manner, uniform and moderate asperities are formed on the surface of
the anti-glare layer by microparticles having a relatively uniform particle size andhaving an average particle size which is set within the above-mentioned range.

As aresult, the sparkle of the display 16a can be suppressed while ensuring the anti -glare
property.

Moreover, by setting the refractive index difference between the matrix

resin and the microparticles to the above-mentioned range, light with a predetermined35

wavelength entering the anti-glare film can be prevented from being scattered at awide angle to thereby prevent the anti-glare film from being colored." (paragraph[0084])"According to the anti-glare film of the second embodiment, by setting therefractive index difference between the matrix resin and the microparticles to apredetermined range and by dispersing a plurality of microparticles in the matrix resin,
the sparkle of the display 16a can be suppressed while ensuring a good anti -glare
property, and light entering the anti-glare film can be favorably inhibited from being
scattered at a wide angle due to the refractive index difference between the matrix
resin and the microparticles, whereby the anti-glare film can be prevented from beingcolored." (paragraph [0101])"(Third Embodiment)
An anti-glare layer 33 of an anti-glare film according to a third embodimenthas a structure in which an asperity shape is formed on a surface of a side opposite to
the substrate film side.

The anti-glare layer 33 is composed of a resin layer.

Thisresin layer is composed, as one example, of a material similar to the matrix resin in
the second embodiment." (paragraph [0103])"Specifically, the anti-glare film according to the third embodiment is producedby forming, on a substrate film, a coating layer which contains a curable resin,followed by shaping a surface of the coating layer into an asperity shape, and thencuring the coating layer.

Figure 2 is a diagram illustrating a method of producing theanti-glare film according to the third embodiment.

In the example of Figure 2, a UV

curable resin is used as the curable resin. (paragraph [0104])"The layer of the UV curable resin precursor coated onto the substrate film 20a(hereinafter referred to as a coating layer) is pressed together with the substrate film
20a at the nip point between the rolls 21, 24.

The roll 24 is a roll-shaped mold(embossing roll) having fine asperities formed on the circumferential surface andtransfers the asperity shape to the surface of the coating layer as the film passes
through the nip point N2 between the rolls 21, 24." (paragraph [0107])"The coating layer having the asperity shape transferred to the surface by theroll 24 is cured by ultraviolet light irradiated from the ultraviolet lamp 26 provided
below the rolls 21, 24.

Thereby, the anti-glare layer 33 is formed.

The anti-glare

film produced in this manner is released from the roll 24 by a roll 25, which is axially
supported adjacent to the roll 24, and is conveyed in a predetermined direction."(paragraph [0108])"Here, the asperities on the surface of the roll 24 are formed by striking the36surface with blast particles having a predetermined particle size by a blasting method.
The asperity shape formed in the coating layer of the anti-glare film can be adjusted
by adjusting the blast particle size." (paragraph [0109])"An average particle size of the blast particles used in step (b) can be set as
appropriate, and as one example, can be set to a value ranging from 10 μm to 50 μm
inclusive.

The average particle size of the blast particles is more desirably a value

ranging from 20 μm to 45 μm inclusive, and still more desirably a value ranging from
30 μm to 40 μm inclusive.

Thereby, the anti-glare layer 33 having an asperity shapeformed on the surface can be obtained." (paragraph [0112])"In the anti-glare film of the third embodiment, since microparticles do nothave to be dispersed in the anti-glare layer 33, light entering the anti-glare film can befavorably prevented from being scattered at a wide angle due to the refractive index
difference between the matrix resin and the microparticles in the anti-glare film tothereby prevent the anti-glare layer from being colored." (paragraph [0115])"(Sparkle Examination Apparatus)
Figure 3 is a schematic view of a sparkle examination apparatus 10.

The

sparkle examination apparatus 10 is a device for evaluating the sparkle of the display
16a in the display device 16 where a film such as the anti-glare film 1 is mounted on asurface.

The sparkle examination apparatus 10 is provided with the housing 11, theimaging device 12, the holding unit 13, the imaging device frame 14, the display
device frame 15, and the image processing device 17.

Examples of a commerciallyavailable sparkle examination apparatus 10 include the 'Film Sparkle Examination
Apparatus' manufactured by Komatsu NTC Ltd." (paragraph [0118])"In the sparkle examination apparatus 10, by adjusting a relative distance
between the imaging device 12 and the display 16a, a pixel size of an image which is
captured per unit pixel (for example, one pixel) of the imaging element of the imaging
device 12 and which is displayed on the display 16a is adjusted." (paragraph [0123])"The methods of adjusting the pixel size of an image to be captured per unit
pixel (for example, one pixel) of the imaging element when an image displayed on thedisplay 16a is captured by the imaging device 12 include a method of changing therelative distance between the imaging device 12 and the display 16a, as well as amethod of changing a focal distance of the imaging device 12 in a case where the lens
18 provided in the imaging device 12 is a zoom lens." (paragraph [0126])"(Sparkle Evaluation Method)
Next, a method of evaluating the sparkle of the display 16a using the sparkle
examination apparatus 10 is described.

In this sparkle evaluation method, for37

convenience of evaluation, the display 16a where the film is mounted on a surface isdisplayed by uniformly emitting light in a single color (green as one example) inadvance." (paragraph [0127])"Next, an adjusting step is performed to adjust the pixel size of the display 16awhere a film to captured per unit pixel of the imaging element of the imaging device
12 is mounted.

In the adjusting step, the relative distance between the imaging

device 12 and the display 16a with the film mounted is adjusted according to thenumber of effective pixels of the imaging element of the imaging device 12 to theextent that, in the image captured by the imaging device 12, there are no bright lines
due to pixels, or even if there is a bright line due to pixels, the bright line does notaffect the evaluation of the sparkle of the display 16a." (paragraph [0128])"Note that the relative distance between the imaging device 12 and the display
device 16 is desirably set by taking into consideration a mode of use of the display
device 16 (for example, the relative distance between user's eyes and the surface ofthe display 16a)." (paragraph [0129])"After the adjustment step is performed, a setting step is performed to set ameasurement area for evaluating the sparkle of the display 16a with the film mounted.
In the setting step, the measurement area is appropriately set according to, forexample, the size of the display 16a." (paragraph [0130])"After the adjusting step is performed, an imaging step is performed to capture
an image of the measurement area of the display 16a with the film mounted, using theimaging device 12.

At this time, as one example, at least one of the exposure time of

the imaging device 12 and the luminance of all pixels of the display 16a is adjusted sothat image data can be obtained as a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation display
and an average luminance of 170 gradations.

The image data captured in theimaging step is input into the image processing device 17." (paragraph [0131])"After the imaging step, the image processing device 17 performs a calculation
step to determine, by using image data, luminance variation in the measurement areaof the display 16a with the film mounted.

In this calculation step, the luminancevariation is converted into a numerical form as a standard deviation of luminancedistribution." (paragraph [0132])"Here, the larger the luminance variation of the display 16a with the film
mounted, the larger the sparkle of the display 16a with the film mounted becomes.
Thus, the smaller the value of the standard deviation of the luminance distribution, thesmaller the sparkle of the display 16a can be quantitatively evaluated.

In addition, in

the adjusting step, the bright line of the display 16a with the film mounted is adjusted
38

to the extent that the bright line does not affect the evaluation of the sparkle of thedisplay 16a, and thus, luminance unevenness due to bright lines can be suppressed,
and the sparkle of the display 16a can be accurately evaluated.

Through each of theforegoing steps, it is possible to determine the standard deviation of the luminancedistribution of the display 16a with the film mounted, and to evaluate the sparkle ofthe display 16a by the value of the standard deviation." (paragraph [0133])"[Standard Deviation of Luminance Distribution of Display (Sparkle Value)]
A smartphone ('Galaxy S4' manufactured by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.)was used as the display device 16, and the anti-glare film of each sample was affixed
to the surface of the display 16a using an adhesive layer (optical glue).

The standard

deviation (sparkle σ: sparkle value) of the luminance distribution of the display 16a
was measured through the anti-glare film of each sample using the film sparkle
examination apparatus 10 manufactured by Komatsu NTC Ltd.

When thismeasurement was performed, at least one of the exposure time of the imaging device
12 and the luminance of all pixels of the display 16a was adjusted so that image data
can be obtained as a gray scale image with an 8-bit gradation display and an averageluminance of 170 gradations." (paragraph [0159])
End of document

39

Attachment 3
1. Statement of Cited Document 1 (Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
2009-244465, Exhibit Ko 1)"The present invention relates to an anti-glare hard coat film, and a liquid
crystal panel and a liquid crystal display device using the same." (paragraph [0001])"Liquid crystal displays (LCDs) are devices which display text and images
using the electrooptic characteristics of liquid crystal molecules, and have become
widespread in cellular phones, notebook-type personal computers, liquid crystal
display TVs, etc.

LCDs typically use a liquid crystal panel in which polarizing

plates are arranged on both sides of a liquid crystal cell.

On the surface of the liqui dcrystal panel, hard coating treatment is generally performed in order to prevent
scratches on the polarizing plates.

The hard coating treatment often uses hard coatfilms to which anti-glare treatment has been applied to prevent reflection caused byfluorescent light or sunlight entering the surface of the liquid crystal panel.

Theanti-glare treatment includes various methods such as embossing, transfer of surface
shape, and phase separation methods, but a method of creating an asperity shape on
the surface of the film by adding inorganic or organic particles, etc. is commonly used.
Conventional anti-glare treatment can prevent the appearance degradation caused byexternal light, but it had a problem of decreasing contrast in the front direction by
scattering transmitted light from the panel backlight.

For this reason, as the anti -glare treatment, anti-glare films which do not have very strong scattering properties
with a haze value of about 50% or less are used in most of the panels.

However,panels are required to have higher definition and higher viewing angles, and thus
panels using high haze anti-glare films have become necessary (see Patent Document
1, for example).

However, such high haze films have high light-diffusing properties,

and when a high haze film is mounted on a liquid crystal panel, this diffuses light in
the front direction, which would otherwise exit diagonally, thus increasing front black
luminance and sometimes causing a reduction in the front contrast ratio." (paragraph[0002])"Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide an anti-glare hardcoat film which can improve a diagonal contrast ratio without significantly decreasinga front contrast ratio to thereby expand a viewing angle and which can suppress
sparkle phenomena to accommodate high definition panels as well, and is to provide aliquid crystal panel and a liquid crystal display device using the same." (paragraph[0004])
40

"To achieve the object, the anti-glare hard coat film of the present invention isan anti-glare hard coat film having an anti-glare hard coat layer on at least one side ofa transparent plastic film substrate, wherein the anti-glare hard coat layer is formed
from an anti-glare hard coat layer-forming material comprising microparticles and acurable hard coat resin, and wherein the anti-glare hard coat film has a haze value of
60% or more, characterized in that the anti-glare hard coat film is used for a liquid
crystal panel in which an all-directional average of light leakage of black luminancein the diagonal 60° direction is 1 cd or less." (paragraph [0005])"The anti-glare hard coat film of the present invention can improve a diagonal
contrast ratio without significantly decreasing a front contrast ratio to thereby expanda viewing angle when used for liquid crystal panels with little light leakage of black
luminance in a diagonal direction.

In addition, the anti-glare hard coat film of thepresent invention can also suppress sparkle phenomena and thus can accommodatehigh definition panels.

Therefore, the liquid crystal display device using the anti -glare hard coat film or liquid crystal panel of the present invention has excellent
display properties." (paragraph [0008])"In the anti-glare hard coat film of the present invention, the microparticles
preferably comprise at least microparticles which form surface asperities andmicroparticles which adjust an internal haze." (paragraph [0010])"The microparticles for forming the anti-glare hard coat layer have the mainfunction to impart an anti-glare property by forming the surface of the anti-glare hardcoat layer into an asperity shape and also to control the haze value of the anti -glare
hard coat layer.

The haze value of the anti-glare hard coat layer can be designed bycontrolling a refractive index difference between the microparticles and the curable
hard coat resin." (paragraph [0032])"The microparticles include at least one or more types, but preferably include
first microparticles which mainly forms surface asperities and second microparticles
which mainly adjust an internal haze.

Combining the first and second microparticles

can reduce an added amount of the microparticles, which mainly form surface
asperities, for the anti-glare hard coat film to have a haze value of 60% or more.

Asa result, the hardness of the anti-glare hard coat layer to be formed can be prevented
from decreasing." (paragraph [0034])"As the first microparticles which mainly form surface asperities, themicroparticles mentioned above can be used.

The weight average particle size of thefirst microparticles is preferably in the range of 20 to 80% of the thickness of the anti glare hard coat layer.

When the weight average particle size of the first41

microparticle is larger than the above-mentioned range, image clarity is reduced.
When the weight average particle size of the first microparticles is smaller than theabove-mentioned range, a sufficient anti-glare property cannot be obtained andsparkle becomes larger, which is a problem." (paragraph [0035])"The refractive index difference between the second microparticles and the
curable hard coat resin is preferably in a range of 0.05 to 0.2." (paragraph [0040])"The anti-glare hard coat film of the present invention has a haze value of 60%
or more.

The haze value refers to a haze value (cloudiness) in accordance with JIS

K7136 (Year 2000 edition).

The haze value is more preferably in a range of 60 to90%, and even more preferably in a range of 65 to 85%.

In order to increase thehaze value, it is preferable to select the microparticles and the curable hard coat resinso that the refractive index difference between the at least one or more types of
microparticles and the curable hard coat resin is 0.005 or more.

In order to achieve ahaze value of 60% or more using only microparticles having the refractive index
difference from that of the resin of less than 0.005, the added amount of the
microparticles has to be 40 parts or more in general.

If the added amount of the

microparticles is excessive, a reduction in hardness and a reduction in scratch
resistance will easily occur, which is not preferable." (paragraph [0042])"Figure 1 shows a cross-sectional schematic view illustrating one example of
the anti-glare hard coat film of the present invention.

As illustrated in Figure 1, in

the anti-glare hard coat film 4 in this example, an anti-glare hard coat layer 2 isformed on one side of a transparent plastic film substrate 1.

The anti-glare hard coatlayer 2 comprises first microparticles 3A which mainly form surface asperities, andsecond microparticles 3B which mainly adjust an internal haze.

In this example, thesurface of the anti-glare hard coat layer 2 is formed into an asperity shape mainly by
the first microparticle 3A.

However, the first microparticle 3A may contribute toadjusting the internal haze, and the second microparticle 3B may contribute toforming surface asperities.

Note that, in this example, the anti-glare hard coat layer

2 is formed on one side of the transparent plastic film substrate 1, but the present
invention is not limited thereto and may be an anti-glare hard coat film in which theanti-glare hard coat layer 2 is formed on both sides of the transparent plastic film
substrate 1.

Further, in this example, the anti-glare hard coat layer 2 is a single layer,

but the present invention is not limited thereto, and the anti-glare hard coat layer 2
may have a multi-layer structure with two or more layers laminated." (paragraph[0053])"The anti-glare hard coat film of the present invention and various optical42

elements such as polarizing plates using the same are used for the liquid crystal panel
in which the all-directional average of light leakage of black luminance in the
diagonal 60° direction is 1 cd or less.

Hereinafter, the all-directional average of thelight leakage of black luminance in the diagonal 60° direction is referred to as an'average black luminance.'

The average black luminance can be measured, forexample, by a method stated in the Examples below.

All directions refer to an

azimuth angle in a range of 0° to 360° shown in Figure 3.

If a hard coat film having

a high haze value is used, when black is displayed on a liquid crystal panel, lightwhich would otherwise exit in a diagonal direction is diffused in the front direction,
thus increasing the black luminance at the front panel and easily causing a reductionin the front contrast ratio.

By combining a panel with an average black luminance of

1 cd or less and an anti-glare hard coat film with a haze value of 60% or more, theincrease in black luminance at the front is reduced and a good front contrast ratio is
obtained.

Examples of the panels with an average black luminance of 1 cd or lessinclude those with in-plane switching (IPS) mode and vertical alignment (VA) mode
as a drive system." (paragraph [0076])"(Sparkle (Definition))(1)

A polarizing plate of 185 μm is affixed to a surface of a transparent film

substrate on which an anti-glare hard coat layer is not formed, and then this is bonded
to a glass substrate.
(2)

The degree of sparkle of a film sample prepared on a mask pattern fixed on alight table was evaluated visually.

Mask patterns with a definition of 106 ppi, 144ppi, and 212 ppi were prepared and determined sequentially.

The definition of themask pattern which was determined as A based on the following determination
criteria was recorded.
Determination Criteria
A: There is almost no sparkle.
B: There is sparkle, but no problem in practical use.
C: There is sparkle." (paragraph [0096])"(Example 1)
As a transparent plastic film substrate, triacetylcellulose film (manufactured by
FUJIFILM Corporation; trade name 'TD80UL'; thickness: 80 μm; refractive index:1.48) was prepared.

In addition, as an anti-glare hard coat layer-forming material,per 100 parts by weight of the resin solid content of GRANDIC PC-1070 (hard coatresin manufactured by Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc.; solid content: 65% byweight; refractive index: 1.53), there were added 0.5 parts by weight of the solid
43

content of a leveling agent (manufactured by Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc.;
trade name 'GRANDIC PC-4100'; solid content: 10% by weight), 0.5 parts by weightof IRGACURE 184 (photopolymerization initiator manufactured by Ciba Specialty
Chemicals, Inc.), 30 parts by weight of acrylic resin microparticles (manufactured by
Sekisui Kasei Co., Ltd.; MBX-8SSTN; size: 8 μm; refractive index: 1.49) as the firstmicroparticles which mainly form surface asperities, and 2 parts by weight of silicone
microparticles (manufactured by Toshiba Silicone Co., Ltd.; 'TOSPEARL 145'; size:
4.5 μm; refractive index: 1.43) as the second microparticles which mainly adjust aninternal haze.

The mixture was prepared by diluting with ethyl acetate so as to be asolid content concentration of 50% by weight, and stirring for 5 minutes using an
ultrasonic cleaner." (paragraph [0097])"(Example 2)
The target anti-glare hard coat film was obtained in the same manner as in
Example 1, except that the number of parts of the second microparticles to be adde d
was changed to 5 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the solid content of theresin material.

The obtained anti-glare hard coat film was mounted on the liquid

crystal panel with IPS mode in the same manner as in Example 1." (paragraph [0105])"(Comparative Example 1)
The anti-glare hard coat film was obtained in the same manner as in Example 1,
except that neither the first nor the second microparticles were added.

The obtained

anti-glare hard coat film was mounted on the liquid crystal panel with IPS mode in thesame manner as in Example 1." (paragraph [0106])"(Comparative Example 2)
The target anti-glare hard coat film was obtained in the same manner as in
Example 1, except that the number of parts of the first microparticles to be added waschanged to 25 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the solid content of the resinmaterial and that the second microparticles were not added.

The obtained anti -glare

hard coat film was mounted on the liquid crystal panel with IPS mode in the samemanner as in Example 1." (paragraph [0107])"(Comparative Example 9)
The target anti-glare hard coat film was obtained in the same manner as in
Example 1, except that the number of parts of the first microparticles to be added waschanged to 15 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the solid content of the resinmaterial.

The obtained anti-glare hard coat film was mounted on the liquid crystal

panel with TN mode in the same manner as in Comparative Example 8." (paragraph[0117])
44

"[Table 2]

Example 1
Example 2Comparative
Example 1
Comparative
Example 2Comparative
Example 3
Comparative
Example 4Comparative
Example 5
Example 3
Example 4Comparative
Example 6
Comparative
Example 7
Comparative
Example 8Comparative
Example 9Comparative
Example 10
Comparative
Example 11
Comparative
Example 12

Average
Haze
black
value
luminance
(%)
(cd)
60
0.19
80
0.19

Front
CR
ratio

Diagonal
CR ratio

98
98

111
116

Definition
Anti(Sparkle)
glare
Clarity
106 144 212
property
ppi ppi ppi
AA
B
A
A
B
AA
B
A
A
A

0

0.19

100

100

C

A

A

A

A

40

0.19

99

102

A

B

A

A

C

0

1.12

100

100

C

A

A

A

A

40

1.12

94

111

A

B

A

A

C

80

1.12

90

122

AA

B

A

A

A

60
80

0.71
0.71

96
95

114
120

AA
AA

B
B

A
A

A
A

A
A

0

0.71

100

100

C

A

A

A

A

40

0.71

97

108

A

B

A

A

C

0

8.46

100

100

C

A

A

A

A

20

8.46

90

105

B

A

A

C

C

40

8.46

70

110

A

B

A

A

C

60

8.46

50

120

AA

B

A

A

B

80

8.46

20

150

AA

B

A

A

A

" (paragraph [0123])
2. Statement of Cited Document 2 (Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
2015-172837, Exhibit Ko 2)"The present invention relates to a touch panel, a display device, and an opticalsheet, as well as a method of screening an optical sheet and a method of producing an
optical sheet." (paragraph [0001])
45

"However, when an optical sheet having an asperity structure such as an antiglare film is used, there is a problem in that the asperity structure causes aphenomenon in which minute variation in luminance appears in image light (sparkle),
which degrades the quality of the display.

In particular, recent ultra high definition

display elements (a pixel density of 300 ppi or more) tend to have stronger sparkle,
which makes the problem of sparkle even more serious." (paragraph [0004])"In order to solve the above-mentioned problem, the present inventors haveconducted diligent research on optical sheets to prevent sparkle.

First, sparkle isconsidered to be caused by distortion of transmitted light due to an asperity shapewhen image light is transmitted through an optical sheet having surface asperity.

Forthis reason, in the past, in order to prevent sparkle, a design was made to increase thenumber of smooth surfaces (design to reduce the degree of asperities) by lowering theangle of inclination of the asperities as in Patent Documents 3 to 9.
However, as mentioned above, even if the design to reduce the degree ofasperities could prevent sparkle in display elements with low pixel density, the same
design could not prevent sparkle in ultra high definition display elements with a pixel
density of 300 ppi or more.

In addition, recent personal digital assistants, as

represented by smartphones, require a high level of anti-glare property for operating
the touch panel outdoors.

However, the design to increase the proportion of smoothsurfaces to thereby prevent sparkle could not quite satisfy such a high level of anti glare property.
Further, as mentioned above, only imparting an internal haze could not
simultaneously prevent sparkle of ultra high definition display elements with a pixel
density of 300 ppi or more and a reduction in resolution.
The present inventors, as a result of their diligent research, have obtained thefindings that sparkle is caused by localized unevenness in luminance, etc. due to therelationship between the pixel density and the asperity shape, and that the internalhaze has a role in making sparkle to be less visible through diffusion.

Further, thepresent inventors conducted diligent research on the prevention of sparkle without
resorting to an internal haze which may cause a reduction in resolution.

As a result,the present inventors found that the after-mentioned formula (I) which represents a
proportion of surface asperities and a surface haze which generally indicates an area
having an angle of inclination of 5 degrees or more are set in a specific range tothereby prevent sparkle and also to prevent a reduction in resolution of ultra highdefinition display elements.

Thus, the present inventors have completed the present

invention." (paragraph [0008])
46

"The optical sheet used for the touch panel of the present invention can prevent
sparkle of image light from ultra high definition display elements with a pixel densityof 300 ppi or more and can also prevent a reduction in resolution by setting a surface
haze and a ratio of [an intensity in the regular transmission direction / a virtual
intensity in the regular transmission direction] (hereinafter sometimes referred to as
an "intensity ratio") to a certain range.

Even if only one of the surface h aze and theintensity ratio satisfies the range of the present invention, the prevention of sparkle
and the prevention of a reduction in resolution cannot be achieved simultaneously."(paragraph [0021])"First, sparkle is considered to be caused by distortion of transmitted light due
to an asperity shape when image light is transmitted through an optical sheet having
surface asperities.

For this reason, in the past, in order to prevent sparkle, a design

to reduce the degree of asperities by lowering the angle of inclination as stated in
Patent Documents 3 to 9 or a design to suppress perceived sparkle by imparting theinternal haze as in Patent Documents 1 and 2 was made.
However, the design to reduce the degree of asperities or imparting the internalhaze alone could not prevent sparkle of image light from ultra high definition display
elements with a pixel density of 300 ppi or more.
The present inventors, as a result of their diligent research, have found thatwhen the degree of asperities is reduced by lowering the angle of inclination as in thepast, the proportion of nearly smooth areas which do not have asperities is increased,
and the boundary between the smooth area and the asperity surface (in other words, anarea where a steep change in the angle occurs) is one of the causes of sparkle.
Further, the JIS standard on surface shapes (JIS B0601) specifies that a contact -type
profilometer should be used, but measurement results cannot sometimes accuratelyreflect surface shapes due to the relationship between stylus shapes and surface
shapes." (paragraph [0022])"Thus, the present inventors focused on a ratio of [an intensity in the regulartransmission direction / a virtual intensity in the regular transmission direction] (anintensity ratio) which indirectly represents an asperity shape.

Then, the present

inventors indirectly defined the asperity shape by setting the intensity ratio to acertain range, and also further specified the asperity shape by setting the surface hazeto a certain range, thereby making it possible to prevent sparkle of ultra highdefinition display elements and also to prevent a reduction in resolution.
The intensity ratio, which will be explained in detail below, is approximated by
the proportion of light which collides with diffusing elements (the sum of internal47diffusing elements and surface diffusing elements).

That is, if the intensity ratio is

close to 1, it can be deemed that the proportion of the case where light transmitted
through an optical sheet collides with a diffusing element is high, and as the intensity
ratio shifts away from 1, it can be deemed that the proportion of the case where lighttransmitted through an optical sheet collides with a diffusing element is low (in otherwords, 'the proportion of light passing through without being disturbed is high').
Further, an effect on the intensity ratio due to surface diffusing elements is muchgreater than that due to internal diffusing elements.

Therefore, the degree ofasperities (surface diffusing elements) can be indirectly represented by specifying theintensity ratio." (paragraph [0023])"For the optical sheet used in the touch panel of the present invention, theintensity ratio has a value close to 1.

Thus, this indicates that the optical sheet has

many surface diffusing elements among the diffusing elements; in other words, theasperity surface has few nearly smooth surfaces and almost the whole surface has an
asperity shape.

That is, the optical sheet quite differs from the design of the opticalsheets of Patent Documents 3 to 9, which have many nearly smooth areas.
On the other hand, according to JIS K7136:2000 and ISO 14782:1999, haze isdefined as the "percentage of transmitted light passing through the test sample which,due to forward scattering, deviates from the incident light by 0.044 rad (2.5 degrees)or more."That is, the haze indicates the proportion of scattered light where incident

light ray is scattered by ±2.5 degrees or more.

In addition, as a physical property oflight, it is known that an angle of light transmitted through an asperity surface isgenerally 1/2 times an angle of inclination.

That is, light transmitted through an area

where an angle of inclination exceeds 5 degrees will be reflected in the haze, but lighttransmitted through an area where an angle of inclination is less than 5 degrees will
not be reflected in the haze.
The optical sheet used in the touch panel of the present invention has anintensity ratio of close to 1, in which almost the whole surface has an asperi ty shape,
but the surface haze is not extremely large.

This means that the optical sheet used in

the touch panel of the present invention includes many asperities having small angle
of inclination (asperities having an angle of inclination of less than 5 degrees) which
is not reflected in the surface haze.

In addition, the optical sheet used in the touch

panel of the present invention does not have a small surface haze, which means thatthe optical sheet includes many asperities having a large angle of inclination(asperities having an angle of inclination of 5 degrees or more) which is reflected in
the surface haze." (paragraph [0024])
48

"Since the optical sheet used in the touch panel of the present invention has anintensity ratio of close to 1, in which nearly smooth surfaces are few and the wholesurface has an asperity shape, it is considered that there are fewer boundaries between
asperity areas and nearly smooth areas on the surface of the optical sheet, whichmakes it easy to prevent sparkle.

Further, since the optical sheet has an intensity

ratio close to 1 and a surface haze in a range which is neither too large nor too small,the asperity shape includes asperities with a small angle of inclination (asperities withan angle of inclination of less than 5 degrees) and asperities with a large angle ofinclination (asperities with an angle of inclination of 5 degrees or more) in a mixed
manner.

Thus, the presence of various angles of inclination in the asperities makes it

easier to prevent sparkle.

(To be precise, sparkle is considered to occur in somedegree even in the present invention.

However, in the present invention, it isconsidered that sparkle is averaged out and is made less noticeable by reducing
boundaries between asperity areas and nearly smooth areas on the surface of the
optical sheet and by having various angles of inclination be present.).
In addition, since the asperity surface has few nearly smooth surfaces and hasvarious angles of inclination be present, the optical sheet can impart a high degree ofanti-glare property which can also withstand bright outdoor environments.

Further,the optical sheet has asperities on almost the whole surface, whereas it has many
asperities having small angle of inclination which is not reflected in the haze, which
prevents a reduction in resolution and also prevents a reduction in contrast when the
optical sheet is used as an anti-glare sheet." (paragraph [0025])"As mentioned above, in the present invention, by using the optical sheet
having a surface haze of 22 to 40% and an intensity ratio of 1.0 to 4.0 inclusive,
sparkle and a reduction in resolution of ultra high definition display elements can beprevented while imparting various properties such as an anti-glare property.
If the surface haze is less than 22% or the intensity ratio exceeds 4.0, sparkle
cannot be prevented.

In addition, if the surface haze exceeds 40%, the resolution

will be reduced.
In addition, if the intensity ratio exceeds 4.0, the proportion of areas having a
diffusing element is reduced, making it difficult to impart a high degree of anti -glare
property which can also withstand bright outdoor environments, and also the numberof areas where a steep change in the angle occurs on the surface of the optical sheet,making it easy to cause sparkle.
The surface haze is preferably 25 to 40%, and more preferably 25 to 35%.
The surface haze can be determined by the method stated in the Examples."49(paragraph [0026])"Next, what is meant by the intensity ratio will be explained.
The optical sheet includes an area having a diffusing element (an area having
asperities on a surface, an area having a diffusing particle inside) and an area without
a diffusing element (an area having a nearly smooth surface and not having a
diffusing particle inside as well).

For this reason, diffuse transmitted light is acomposite of light 'which passes through without being disturbed' without colliding
with a diffusing element and light which collides with a diffusing element.

That is,the intensity distribution measured as mentioned above is a composite of light 'which
passes through without being disturbed' and light which collides with a diffusing
element.

Thus, the intrinsic intensity in the regular transmission direction shown in

Figures 3 to 9 is also an intensity composed of light 'which passes through without
being disturbed' and light which collides with a diffusing element.
On the other hand, since sparkle is considered to be caused by distortion oftransmitted light due to a surface diffusing element among diffusing elements, it isfirst necessary to know the diffusion characteristics of the light which collides with adiffusing element among the composite intensity in the regular transmission direction.
Moreover, the virtual intensity in the regular transmission direction can beapproximated as the regular transmission of light which collides with a diffusing
element.
Thus, the ratio of [the intensity in the regular transmission direction / thevirtual intensity in the regular transmission direction] is approximated as the
proportion of light which collides with a diffusing element.

That is, if the intensity

ratio is close to 1, it can be deemed that the proportion of the case where lighttransmitted through an optical sheet collides with a diffusing element is high, and as
the intensity ratio becomes larger than 1, it can be deemed that the proportion of thecase where light transmitted through an optical sheet collides with a diffusing element
is low (in other words, 'the proportion of light passing through without being
disturbed is high').
Moreover, as mentioned above, the degree of asperities (surface diffusing
element) can be more specifically expressed by specifying the surface haze as well as
specifying the intensity ratio.
Note that since intensity of transmission and intensity of reflection show almost
the same behavior, it can be deemed that a high proportion of the case where lighttransmitted through an optical sheet collides with a diffusing element means that a
proportion of the case where external light collides with a diffusing element is high.
50That is, the evaluation of the intensity ratio mentioned above leads to the evaluationof the anti-glare property as well." (paragraph [0029])"Preferably, the optical sheet has a total luminous transmittance (JIS K7361-1:
1997) of 80% or more, more preferably of 85% or more, and even more preferably of
90% or more.
Preferably, the optical sheet has a haze (JIS K7136: 2000) of 25 to 60%, more
preferably of 30 to 60%, and even more preferably of 30 to 50%.

By setting the haze

to 25% or more, an anti-glare property can be imparted and the shape and scratches ofelectrodes can be made difficult to see.

Further, by setting the haze to 60% or less, a

reduction in resolution of ultra high definition display elements is prevented, and areduction in contrast can be easily prevented.
Furthermore, the internal haze is preferably 5 to 30%, more preferably 5 to25%, and even more preferably 10 to 18%.

By setting the internal haze to 5% or

more, sparkle can be easily prevented through a synergistic effect with surface
asperities, and by setting the internal haze to 30% or less, a reduction in resolution ofultra high definition display elements can be prevented.
In addition, from the viewpoint of balancing the effects of the surface haze andthe internal haze mentioned above, the ratio of the surface haze (Hs) and the internalhaze (Hi) (Hs/Hi) is preferably 1.0 to 5.0, more preferably 2.0 to 5.0, and even more
preferably 2.5 to 4.5." (paragraph [0035])"In order to set the surface haze to 22 to 40% in the optical sheet, the surface
diffusing element should be adjusted.

Specifically, the asperity layer is formed froma binder resin and translucent particles, and the surface diffusing element can be
adjusted by controlling the shape of the translucent particles, the dispersion state of
the particles, the particle size, the added amount of particles, the thickness of theasperity layer, etc.

Further, the surface diffusion element is preferably adjusted bytaking into consideration the inclination angle of asperities, and the inclination angleof asperities can be adjusted by the method mentioned below." (paragraph [0045])"Methods of forming asperities include, for example, 1) a method using anembossing roll, 2) etching treatment, 3) molding with a mold, and 4) forming a coatedfilm with coating.

Among these methods, 3) molding with a mold is suitable fromthe viewpoint of reproducibility of asperity shapes, and 4) forming a coated film withcoating is suitable from the viewpoint of productivity and compatibility with a wide
variety of products." (paragraph [0047])"Production by molding with a mold can be performed by preparing a moldwith a complementary shape to an asperity surface, pouring materials constituting the51asperity layer, such as a polymer resin or glass, into the mold, allowing them to cure,and then removing from the mold.

When using a transparent substrate, production

can be performed by pouring a polymer resin or the like into a mold, laminating atransparent substrate thereon, then allowing the polymer resin or the like to cure, andremoving the whole transparent substrate from the mold.

Further, in the case of

imparting internal diffusion by translucent particles, additives, etc., when a polymer
resin, etc. is poured into a mold, the translucent particles, additives, etc. should
additionally be poured into the mold." (paragraph [0048])"(Omitted) In addition, from the viewpoint of setting the internal haze within
the range of the present invention, the refractive index difference between thetranslucent particles and the binder resin is preferably 0.01 to 0.10." (paragraph[0051])
3. Statement of Well-known Document A1 (Unexamined Patent Application
Publication No. 2015-172835, Exhibit Ko 7)"Preferably, the optical sheet has a total luminous transmittance (JIS K7361 -1:
1997) of 80% or more, more preferably of 85% or more, and even more preferably of
90% or more.
Preferably, the optical sheet has a haze (JIS K7136: 2000) of 25 to 60%, more
preferably of 30 to 60%, and even more preferably of 30 to 50%.

By setting the haze

to 25% or more, the anti-glare property can be imparted and the shape and scratchesof electrodes can be made difficult to see.

Further, by setting the haze to 60% or less,a reduction in resolution of ultra high definition display elements is prevented, and areduction in contrast can be easily prevented.
Furthermore, when the haze is divided into the surface haze (Hs) and theinternal haze (Hi), the surface haze is preferably 20 to 50%, more preferably 20 to
45%, and even more preferably 25 to 40%.

By setting the surface haze to 20% or

more, it is possible to make an anti-glare property to be good and to make it difficult
to see the shape and scratches of electrodes even in bright operating environments
such as outdoors, etc.

By setting the surface haze to 50% or less, a reduction incontrast and a reduction in resolution can be easily prevented.
Furthermore, the internal haze is preferably 5 to 30%, more preferably 5 to25%, and even more preferably 10 to 18%.

By setting the internal haze to 5% or

more, sparkle can be easily prevented through a synergistic effect with surface
asperities, and by setting the internal haze to 30% or less, a reduct ion in resolution ofultra high definition display elements can be prevented.
52

In addition, from the viewpoint of balancing the effects of the surface haze andthe internal haze as mentioned above, the ratio of the surface haze and the internalhaze (Hs/Hi) is preferably 1.0 to 5.0, more preferably 2.0 to 5.0, and even more
preferably 2.5 to 4.5.
The surface haze and the internal haze can be determined, for example, by themethod described in the Examples." (paragraph [0029])
End of document53