Patent
Right

Date
Case number

March 9, 2023
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10030

Court

Intellectual Property
High Court, Fourth
Division- A case in which a patent revocation decision in which correction was not allowed
has been rescinded on the grounds that matters corrected in a request for correction
as filed during procedures of an opposition to a granted patent correspond to
restriction and that there is no addition of new matter.
Case type: Rescission of Patent Revocation Decision
Result: Granted
References: Article 120-5, paragraph (2), item (i), and paragraph (9), and Article 126,
paragraph (5) of the Patent Act
Related rights, etc.: Patent No. 6547817
Revocation Decision: Opposition No. 2019-701046
Summary of the Judgment
1.

The Opponent filed an opposition to a granted patent with regard to thePlaintiff's patent (Patent No. 6547817) titled "LAMINATE OF POLYESTER RESINCOMPOSITION," on December 20, 2019.
During procedures of the opposition to the granted patent, the Plaintiff filed arequest for correction and made correction as follows: in the scope of claims, therecitation "according to any one of Claims 1 to 3" in Claim 4 was corrected to read"according to Claim 2 or 3", and Claims 5 to 14 which depend on Claim 4 werecorrected similarly (Correction Matter 1); Claim 4 was made to be independent Claim
15 by resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 4 depends on Claim 1, andthe matter "(except for one in which a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide isprovided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film is provided on the vapor deposited film)" was added immediately before "." at the end (Correction Matter 2);
and Claims 8 to 14 were also made to be independent claims by resolving adependence relationship in which each of Claims 8 to 14 depends on Claim 4 whichfurther depends on Claim 1, and the matter "(except for one in which a vapordeposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier
coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" was added immediately before"." at the end (Correction Matters 3 to 9).
(Claim 1 before correction)
A laminate having at least two layers,
wherein a first layer consists of a biaxially-oriented resin film, wherein a resin
composition which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises a polyestericonsisting of a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit as a main component, whereinsaid polyester comprises: a biomass-derived polyester in which said diol unit is abiomass-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel derived terephthalic acid; and a fossil fuel-derived polyester in which said diol unit isa fossil fuel-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel derived terephthalic acid, wherein said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises 90
mass % or less of said biomass-derived polyester,wherein a second layer consists of a resin material comprising a fossil fuel-derived
raw material and does not comprise a resin material comprising a biomass -derived
raw material.
(Claim 4 before correction)
The laminate according to any one of Claims 1 to 3, wherein said resin
composition further comprises an additive.
(Claim 15 after correction)
A laminate having at least two layers,
wherein a first layer consists of a biaxially-oriented resin film, wherein a resin
composition which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises a polyester
consisting of a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit as a main component, and further
comprises an additive, wherein said polyester comprises: a biomass-derived polyester
in which said diol unit is a biomass-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acidunit is a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid; and a fossil fuel-derived polyester inwhich said diol unit is a fossil fuel-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acidunit is a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid, wherein said biaxially-oriented resin
film comprises 90 mass % or less of said biomass-derived polyester,wherein a second layer consists of a resin material comprising a fossil fuel -derived
raw material and does not comprise a resin material comprising a biomass -derived
raw material (except for one in which a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide isprovided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film is provided on the vapor deposited film).
2.

The Japan Patent Office determined as follows: [i] in Correction Matters 2 to 9,

adding the matter "(except for one in which a vapor-deposited film of an inorganicoxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film is provided on thevapor-deposited film)" is to specify the constituent feature "on the laminate" otherthan the constituent feature "a laminate having at least two layers" in an invention
according to Claim 4 in the scope of claims, and is not to specify the constituent
feature "a laminate having at least two layers" itself and specifications such asii

properties and shape of the layer which constitutes the laminate in the invention
according to Claim 4 in the scope of claims before correction of the present case , andthus, such adding the matter does not correspond to the purpose of "restriction of thescope of claims" provided in item (i) of the proviso to Article 120-5, paragraph (2) ofthe Patent Act and does not also correspond to any of purposes provided in items
other than item (i) of the proviso to the same paragraph as well, and the refore, thecorrection of the present case cannot be allowed; and [ii] Present Inventions 1 to 14
before correction lack an inventive step.
3.

In a suit of the present case, the Japan Patent Office added an assertion that therequest for correction of the present case adds new matter.
4.

The Court rescinded the revocation decision of the present case on the following

grounds: [i] since Claim 1 before correction merely specifies "a laminate having atleast two layers" with regard to "a laminate", the laminate according to Claim 1 before
correction includes a laminate (hereinafter referred to as "laminate A") consisting of"a first layer", "a second layer", and "a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide"and "a gas barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film", andCorrection Matter 2 can be deemed to exclude laminate A from the laminate
according to Claim 1 before correction including "laminate A", which narrows atechnical invention of the invention according to Claim 4 before correction, and thus,
Correction Matter 2 corresponds to the purpose of restriction of the scope of claims;[ii] even if the presence or absence of addition of new matter, which was not
examined / determined in the opposition procedures, may be examined / determined in
the present case, excluding "(except for one in which a vapor-deposited film of an
inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film isprovided on the vapor-deposited film)" according to Correction Matter 2 does nothave any influence on a technical problem "to provide a laminate having a layer
consisting of a resin composition containing a carbon neutral polyester using biomass
ethylene glycol and to provide a laminate of a polyester resin film which bears
comparison in physical properties such as mechanical properties with a laminate
produced from a raw material obtained from a conventional fossil fuel" ([0008]), andthus, no new technical matter has been introduced.

iii

Judgment rendered on March 9, 2023
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10030 Case of seeking rescission of a decision to revoke a patent
Date of conclusion of oral argument: December 21, 2022
Judgment
Plaintiff: Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.
Defendant: Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office
Main text
1. A decision rendered by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on Opposition No.
2019-701046 on March 22, 2022 shall be rescinded.
2. The defendant shall bear the court costs.
Facts and reasons
No. 1

Claim
The same gist as the main text.

No. 2

Outline of the case

1. Outline of Procedures, etc. at the JPO (undisputed by the parties)(1)

The Plaintiff filed an application of Patent Application No. 2010 -244721 on

October 29, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "filing date of the original
application").

With regard to a part of the application of Patent Application No.

2010-244721, the Plaintiff filed a new application of Patent Application No. 2016 49799 on March 14, 2016.

Further, with regard to a part of the application of Patent

Application No. 2016-49799, the Plaintiff filed a new application on December 6,
2017, for which establishment of a patent right was registered on July 5, 2019 (Patent
No. 6547817; Number of claims: 14; hereinafter, this patent will be referred to as the"Present Patent"), and the gazette in which the patent appears was issued on the 24thof the same month.
(2)

With regard to the Present Patent, an opposition to a granted patent was filed

on December 20, 2019.

The Japan Patent Office examined this opposition as

Opposition No. 2019-701046, issued a written notice of grounds for revocation on
June 2, 2020, and issued a notice of grounds for revocation (an advance notice ofdecision) on January 26, 2021.
The Plaintiff submitted a written request for correction and a written opinion
on March 29 of the same year, and submitted a written amendment to amend therequest for correction in the above-mentioned written request for correction on April1

23 of the same year (hereinafter, this amended request for correction will be referred
to as the "Request for Correction of the Present Case," and the correction itself will bereferred to as the "Correction of the Present Case").
The Japan Patent Office issued a written notice of grounds for rejection ofcorrection on July 6, 2021.

In response thereto, the Plaintiff submitted a written

opinion on August 6 of the same year.
(3)

The Japan Patent Office did not allow the Correction of the Present Case andrendered a decision that "The patent according to Claims 1 to 14 of Patent No.
6547817 shall be revoked" on March 22, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the"Revocation Decision of the Present Case"), a certified copy of which was served on
the Plaintiff on March 31, 2022.
(4)

The Plaintiff instituted an action of the present case for seeking rescission of

the Revocation Decision of the Present Case on April 28, 2022.
2. Recitation of Scope of Claims and Content of Correction of Present Case
The inventions according to Claims 1 to 14 of the Present Patent before theCorrection of the Present Case (hereinafter referred to as "Present Invention 1," etc.
and collectively referred to as the "Present Invention") and the content of theCorrection of the Present Case are as follows.
(1) Present Invention[Claim 1]
A laminate having at least two layers,
wherein a first layer consists of a biaxially-oriented resin film, wherein a resin
composition which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises a polyester
consisting of a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit as the main component, whereinsaid polyester comprises: a biomass-derived polyester in which said diol unit is abiomass-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel derived terephthalic acid; and a fossil fuel-derived polyester in which said diol unit isa fossil fuel-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel derived terephthalic acid, wherein said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises 90
mass % or less of said biomass-derived polyester,wherein a second layer consists of a resin material comprising a fossil fuelderived raw material and does not comprise a resin material comprising a biomass derived raw material.
[Claim 2]
The laminate according to Claim 1, wherein said resin composition further
comprises a recycled polyester of a polyester in which the diol unit is a fossil fuel 2derived diol or a biomass-derived ethylene glycol, and the dicarboxylic acid unit is a
fossil fuel-derived dicarboxylic acid.
[Claim 3]
The laminate according to Claim 2, wherein said resin composition comprises
said recycled polyester in a range of 5 to 45 mass % with respect to the entire resin
composition.
[Claim 4]
The laminate according to any one of Claims 1 to 3, wherein said resin
composition further comprises an additive.
[Claim 5]
The laminate according to Claim 4, wherein said resin composition comprises
said additive in a range of 5 to 50 mass % with respect to the entire resin composition.
[Claim 6]
The laminate according to Claim 4 or 5, wherein said additive is one or more
selected from the group consisting of a plasticizer, an ultraviolet stabilizer, an anti coloring agent, a matting agent, a deodorant, a flame retardant, a weatherproofing
agent, an antistatic agent, a yarn friction reducer, a mold release agent, an antioxidant,
an ion exchanger, and a coloring pigment.
[Claim 7]
The laminate according to any one of Claims 1 to 6, further having a third layer
consisting of an inorganic substance or inorganic oxide.
[Claim 8]
A laminated film provided with the laminate according to any one of Claims 1
to 7.
[Claim 9]
A packaging bag provided with the laminate according to any one of Claims 1
to 7.
[Claim 10]
A sheet molded article provided with the laminate according to any one ofClaims 1 to 7.
[Claim 11]
A label material provided with the laminate according to any one of Claims 1
to 7.
[Claim 12]
A lid material provided with the laminate according to any one of Claims 1 to 7.
[Claim 13]
3

A laminated tube provided with the laminate according to any one of Claims 1
to 7.
[Claim 14]
A packaging product provided with the laminate according to any one ofClaims 1 to 7.
(2) Content of Correction of Present Case
A. Correction Matter 1 (Correction According to Claim 4 among Group of Claims
Consisting of Claims 4 to 14)
The recitation "according to any one of Claims 1 to 3" in Claim 4 in the scopeof claims is corrected to recite "according to Claim 2 or 3."
In addition, Claims 5 to 14, which depend on Claim 4, are also corrected in thesame manner.
B. Correction Matter 2 (Correction According to Claim 15 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 4 depends on Claim 1
in the scope of claims, original Claim 4 is made to be Claim 15 which is anindependent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which a vapor-deposited film of
an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film isprovided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately before "." at the end.
C. Correction Matter 3 (Correction According to Claim 16 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 8 depends on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims, original Claim 8 is made to
be Claim 16 which is an independent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately
before "." at the end.
D. Correction Matter 4 (Correction According to Claim 17 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 9 depends on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims, original Claim 9 is made to
be Claim 17 which is an independent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately
before "." at the end.
E. Correction Matter 5 (Correction According to Claim 18 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 10 depends on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims, original Claim 10 is made to
be Claim 18 which is an independent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which a4

vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately
before "." at the end.
F. Correction Matter 6 (Correction According to Claim 19 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 11 depends on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims, original Claim 11 is made to
be Claim 19 which is an independent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately
before "." at the end.
G. Correction Matter 7 (Correction According to Claim 20 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 12 depends on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims, original Claim 12 is made to
be Claim 20 which is an independent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately
before "." at the end.
H. Correction Matter 8 (Correction According to Claim 21 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 13 depends on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims, original Claim 13 i s made to
be Claim 21 which is an independent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately
before "." at the end.
I. Correction Matter 9 (Correction According to Claim 22 after Correction)
By resolving a dependence relationship in which Claim 14 depends on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims, original Clai m 14 is made to
be Claim 22 which is an independent claim, and the matter "(except for one in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)" is added immediately
before "." at the end.
(3) Group of ClaimsWith regard to Claims 4 to 14 before the Correction of the Present Case, since
Claims 5 to 14 cite the recitation of Claim 4 to be corrected in the Request for
Correction of the Present Case, the Correction of the Present Case is requested for agroup of claims (4 to 14).
5

In the Correction of the Present Case, Claim 4 which depends on Claim 1 in thescope of claims is made in an independent form (Claim 15 in the scope of claims after
the Correction of the Present Case), and Claims 8 to 14 which depend on Claim 4
which further depends on Claim 1 in the scope of claims are each made in an
independent form (Claims 16 to 22 in the scope of claims after the Correction of the
Present Case), which resolves a dependence relationship with Claim 1 and Claim 4 inthe scope of claims.

The Plaintiff, who is the Patentee, requests that if the correction

for the purpose of resolving these dependence relationships, etc. is allowed, thecorrection for Claims 15 to 22 in the scope of claims after the Correction of the
Present Case be each handled as a separate unit of correction.
3. Gist of Revocation Decision of Present Case(1)

The gist of grounds for Revocation Decision of the Present Case concerning theissues of the present case is the following: [i] in Correction Matters 2 to 9 of thepresent case, adding the matter "(except for one in which a vapor-deposited film of an
inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film isprovided on the vapor-deposited film)" is to specify the constituent feature "on thelaminate" other than the constituent feature "a laminate having at least two layers" in
the invention according to Claim 4 in the scope of claims, and is not to s pecify theconstituent feature "a laminate having at least two layers" itself and specifications
such as properties and shape of the layers which constitute the laminate in theinvention according to Claim 4 in the scope of claims before the Correction of the
Present Case, and thus, Correction Matter 2 does not fall under the purpose of"restriction of the scope of claims" provided for in item (i) of the proviso to Article120-5, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act and does not also fall under any of purposes
provided for in items other than item (i) of the proviso to Article 120-5, paragraph (2)of the Patent Act as well, and therefore, the Correction of the Present Case cannot beallowed; [ii] Present Invention 1 could have been easily made by a person ordinar ily
skilled in the art on the basis of an invention stated in Unexamined Patent Application
Publication No. 2007-210208 (hereinafter referred to as "Cited Document 4")(hereinafter referred to as the "Cited Invention") and the matter stated in Unexamined
Patent Application Publication No. 2009-91694 (hereinafter referred to as "Cited
Document 5") (details omitted), Present Inventions 2 and 3 could have been easily
made by a person ordinarily skilled in the art on the basis of the Cited Invention, thematter stated in Cited Document 5, and the well-known art, and Present Inventions 4
to 14 could have been easily made by a person ordinarily skilled in the art on the basisof the Cited Invention, the matter stated in Cited Document 4 (relevant passage s of6

[0023], [0027], and [0028]), the matter stated in Cited Document 5, and the well known art.
(2)

Gist of Cited Invention Found by Revocation Decision of Present Case,

Common Feature and Difference between Present Inventions 1 to 14 and Cited
Invention, and Determination Whether Differences 1 and 2 from Cited Invention Can
Be Easily Conceived
As stated in Attachment 1, 1.
4. Grounds for Rescission(1) Error in Determination on Correction Requirement (Grounds 1 for Rescission)(2) Error in Determination on Inventive Step of Present Invention Based on Cited
Invention (Grounds 2 for Rescission)(3) Violation of Procedure (Grounds 3 for Rescission)(omitted)
No. 4

Judgment of this court

1. Present Invention(1)

The description of the present case contains statements on the Present

Invention as shown in Attachment 2.
(2)

According to the stated matters mentioned in (1) above, it can be found that thedescription of the present case contains the following disclosures on the Present
Invention.
A. The Present Invention relates to a laminate having a layer which consists of abiomass polyester resin composition obtained from a plant-derived raw material, andmore particularly to a laminate having a first layer which consists of a resin
composition comprising polyester using a biomass-derived ethylene glycol as a diol
component ([0001]).
B. In recent years, for the development of a recycling-oriented society, a departurefrom fossil fuels has been desired in the materials sector as well as in the energy
sector, and the utilization of biomass which is so-called carbon neutral and renewable
has been attracting attention ([0003]).
C. A problem of the Present Invention is to provide a laminate having a layer
which consists of a resin composition containing a carbon neutral polyester using abiomass ethylene glycol, in which the laminate bears comparison in physicalproperties such as mechanical properties with a laminate produced from a raw
material obtained from a conventional fossil fuel ([0008]).
7

D. The Present Invention achieves the above-mentioned object of the Present
Invention by the structure "a laminate having at least two layers" comprising "a firstlayer" and "a second layer."
The "first layer" is a layer which "consists of a biaxially-oriented resin film,
wherein a resin composition which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film
comprises a polyester consisting of a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit as the main
component, wherein said polyester comprises: a biomass-derived polyester in which
said diol unit is a biomass-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a
fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid; and a fossil fuel-derived polyester in which said
diol unit is a fossil fuel-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a
fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid, wherein said biaxially-oriented resin film
comprises 90 mass % or less of said biomass-derived polyester."Further, the"second layer" is a layer which "consists of a resin material comprising a fossil fu elderived raw material and does not comprise a resin material comprising a biomass derived raw material" ([0009]).
E. By adopting the structure of the Present Invention, a laminate having a layer
which consists of a carbon neutral resin can be achieved, the amount of fossil fuels
used can be greatly reduced, and the environmental burden can be reduced.

Inaddition, the laminate of the polyester resin composition of the Present Invention usesa polyester resin composition which bears comparison in physical properties such asmechanical properties with a laminate of a polyester resin composition produced froma raw material obtained from a conventional fossil fuel, and can therefore replace theconventional laminate of the polyester resin composition ([0020]).
2. Grounds 1 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Correction Requirement)(1) Purpose of Correction
A. Correction Matter 2 is to make original Claim 4, which depends on Claim 1, to
be Claim 15 which is a new independent claim, and to add the matter "(except for one
in which a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate,
wherein a gas barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film)".
Since the "laminate" is merely specified as a "laminate having at least twolayers" in Claim 1 before correction, the laminate as used herein includes a laminate
consisting of "a first layer," "a second layer," and other optional layers.

In thisregard, "a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide" and "a gas barrier coated film""provided on the vapor-deposited film" also form a layer and thus correspond to these
optional layers.

Therefore, the "laminate" in Claim 1 before correction includes alaminate consisting of "a first layer," "a second layer," and "a vapor-deposited film of8

an inorganic oxide" and "a gas barrier coated film" "provided on the vapor -depositedfilm" (hereinafter referred to as the "laminate A").
Then, Correction Matter 2 can be deemed to exclude the laminate A from thelaminate according to Claim 1 before correction including the "laminate A."

By

specifying the laminate in this manner, a technical invention in the invention
according to Claim 4 before correction is narrowed.

Therefore, it is clear that

Correction Matter 2 falls under the purpose of restriction of the scope of claims
provided for in item (i) of the proviso to Article 120-5, paragraph (2) of the Patent
Act.
B. The Defendant asserts, as mentioned in No. 3, 1(2)A(A) above, that Correction
Matter 2 is not recited in such a manner that "a vapor-deposited film of an inorganicoxide" and "a gas barrier coated film" thereon which are made constituent featuresinside the "laminate" are excluded from the "laminate," but is recited in such a mannerthat one in which "a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide" is newly provided"on" the "laminate," which corresponds to outside the "laminate," and "a gas barrier
coated film" is further provided thereon is excluded, and that the scope itself of the"laminate" is not therefore restricted.

However, the matter for specifying the Present

Invention is not a laminate completed by "a first layer" and "a second layer," but falls
under a so-called open claim in which the invention for which a patent is sought is
specified as all laminates having "a first layer" and "a second layer."Thus, in

specifying the specific layer structure included in the scope of the right, it ismeaningless to formally distinguish between the inside and outside of the laminate(all of the layers outside "a first layer" and "a second layer" are constituent features ofthe "laminate" in the Present Invention).

Further, as mentioned in A above, thespecific content of "one in which a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide isprovided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film is provided on the vapordeposited film" is a laminate provided with "a first layer" and "a second layer" as wellas "a vapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide" and "a gas barrier coated film""provided on the vapor-deposited film," and thus cannot be distinguished from thelaminate A.

Therefore, Correction Matter 2 is a correction in which the laminate A

is excluded from the laminate before correction, which restricts the scope of the"laminate."
In addition, the Defendant asserts that it should be deemed that a correction
which makes "disclaimer" as in Correction Matter 2 of the present case may cause
third parties to misunderstand the statement of the description, etc. and has highprobability of giving unforeseen disadvantages to third parties.
9

However, even ifthere are such concerns as the Defendant asserts, it should be deemed to be an issue
which should be examined concerning whether the claims after correction comply
with the clarity requirement and the support requirement, etc.

Thus, in any case, it is

not reasonable to immediately regard this point as the reason why the correction is notallowed in the present case.
C. As mentioned in the foregoing, the Revocation Decision of the Present Case iserroneous in determining that Correction Matter 2 does not fall under the purpose ofrestriction of the scope of claims.
In addition, the Revocation Decision of the Present Case is erroneous also in
determining that Correction Matters 3 to 9 do not fall under the purpose of restrictionof the scope of claims.
(2) Presence or Absence of Addition of New Matter
A. Even if the presence or absence of addition of new matter which is not
examined and determined in the opposition procedures could be examined anddetermined in the present case, it cannot be recognized that Correction Matter 2 adds
new matter.
That is, in a case where a correction does not introduce new technical matter in
relation to the technical matter which a person ordinarily skilled in the art derives bytaking into overall consideration the entire statement of the description or drawings, it
should be construed that the correction is made "within the scope of the matters
indicated in the description or drawings."

In this regard, excluding "one in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film" according to Correction
Matter 2 does not introduce new technical matter and does not add new matter.
The problem of the Present Invention is to provide a laminate having a layer
which consists of a resin composition containing a carbon neutral polyester using abiomass ethylene glycol and to provide a laminate of a polyester resin film whichbears comparison in physical properties such as mechanical properties with a laminate
produced from a raw material obtained from a conventional fossil fuel ([0008]).
However, excluding the matter mentioned above does not have any influence on thistechnical problem.
B. The Defendant asserts, as mentioned in No. 3, 1(2)A(B), that to the problem of
the Present Invention, Correction Matter 2 adds "a vapor-deposited film of an
inorganic oxide is provided on the laminate, wherein a gas barrier coated film" "on
the vapor-deposited film" which is a means for solving a problem in the Cited
Document thereby to add new technical matter, and that based on the added matter as10

a premise, Correction Matter 2 excludes it and thus introduces new technical matter.
However, the technical matter which remains after excluding according toCorrection Matter 2 does not have any new technical element as compared to that
before the Correction of the Present Case.

Therefore, the Defendant's assertion is

not acceptable.
Further, all of other points asserted by the Defendant are not also acceptable inlight of those already held in (1)B mentioned above.
C. Correction Matters 3 to 9 are similar to those mentioned in A and B above andalso do not introduce new matter.
(3) Summary
As mentioned in (1) and (2) above, the Correction of the Present Case falls
under the restriction of scope of claims and does not fall under the addition of new
matter.

The Defendant also asserts other matters at great length, but none of them

are sufficient to affect the above-mentioned conclusion.

Then, without going so far

as to determine other issues, the Correction of the Present Case complies with thecorrection requirement, and the Revocation Decision of the Present Case is erroneous
in determining to deny this.

In this regard, since the Revocation Decision of the

Present Case does not allow the Correction of the Present Case, the inventions
according to Claims 15 to 22 after correction have not been determined on otherrequirements than the requirement of the purpose of correction, and it has not been
finalized whether or not a patent can be granted.
Thus, it is clear that there is a possibility that the above-mentioned error in thedetermination affects the conclusion of the Revocation Decision of the Present Case.
Therefore, Grounds 1 for Rescission asserted by the Plaintiff are well founded.
3. Conclusion
As mentioned in the foregoing, since Grounds 1 for Rescission are wellfounded, the Revocation Decision of the Present Case shall be revoked without goingso far as to determine other grounds for rescission, and the judgment is rendered as
mentioned in the main text.
Intellectual Property High Court, Fourth Division
Presiding Judge: KANNO Masayuki
Judge:MOTOYOSHI Hiroyuki

Judge:OKAYAMA Tadahiro

11

(Attachment 1)
1. Gist of Cited Invention Found by Revocation Decision of Present Case, Common
Feature and Difference between Present Inventions 1 to 14 and Cited Invention, andDetermination Whether Differences 1 and 2 from Cited Invention Can Be Easily
Conceived(1) Cited Invention
A laminate material for packaging as a packaging bag, which is provided with agas barrier laminate film, a printed layer, a laminating adhesive layer, and a heatsealable resin layer sequentially, wherein the gas barrier laminate film comp rises a
substrate consisting of a biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate film, in which avapor-deposited film of an inorganic oxide is provided on the substrate wherein a gas
barrier coated film is provided on the vapor-deposited film, and wherein the heatsealable resin layer consists of a film or sheet of ethylene-α-olefin copolymer
polymerized using a metallocene catalyst.
(2) Common Feature and Difference between Present Inventions 1 to 14 and Cited
Invention
A. Common Feature
A laminate having at least two layers,
wherein a first layer consists of a biaxially-oriented resin film, wherein a resin
composition which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises a polyester
consisting of a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit as the main component, andwherein a second layer consists of a resin material.
B. Difference between Present Inventions 1 to 14 and Cited Invention(A) Difference 1 (Common in Present Inventions 1 to 14)
With regard to the "first layer" which "consists of a biaxially-oriented resin
film, wherein a resin composition which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film
comprises a polyester consisting of a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit as the main
component," in Present Invention 1, "said polyester comprises: a biomass-derived
polyester in which said diol unit is a biomass-derived ethylene glycol and said
dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid; and a fossil fuelderived polyester in which said diol unit is a fossil fuel-derived ethylene glycol andsaid dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid, wherein said
biaxially-oriented resin film comprises 90 mass % or less of said biomass-derived
polyester."

In contrast, in the Cited Invention, this point is unclear.

(B) Difference 2 (Common in Present Inventions 1 to 14)
With regard to the "second layer" which "consists of a resin material," in12Present Invention 1, the "second layer" "consists of a resin material comprising a
fossil fuel-derived raw material and does not comprise a resin material comprising abiomass-derived raw material."

In contrast, in the Cited Invention, this point isunclear.
(C) Difference 3 (Common in Present Inventions 2 to 6)
In Present Inventions 2 to 6, "said resin composition further comprises a
recycled polyester of a polyester in which the diol unit is a fossil fuel -derived diol ora biomass-derived ethylene glycol, and the dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuelderived dicarboxylic acid."

In contrast, in the Cited Invention, this point is unclear.

(D) Difference 4 (Common in Present Inventions 3 to 6)
Present Inventions 3 to 6, the resin composition "comprises said recycled
polyester in a range of 5 to 45 mass % with respect to the entire resin composition."
In contrast, in the Cited Invention, this point is unclear.
(E) Difference 5 (Common in Present Inventions 4 to 6)
In Present Inventions 4 to 6, "said resin composition further comprises anadditive."

In contrast, in the Cited Invention, this point is unclear.

(F) Difference 6 (Common in Present Inventions 5 and 6)
In Present Inventions 5 and 6, the resin composition "comprises said additive ina range of 5 to 50 mass % with respect to the entire resin composition."

In contrast,in the Cited Invention, this point is unclear.
(G) Difference 7 (Present Invention 6)
In Present Invention 6, "said additive is one or more selected from the groupconsisting of a plasticizer, an ultraviolet stabilizer, an anti-coloring agent, a matting
agent, a deodorant, a flame retardant, a weatherproofing agent, an antistatic agent, ayarn friction reducer, a mold release agent, an antioxidant, an ion exchanger, and acoloring pigment."

In contrast, in the Cited Invention, this point is unclear.

(3) Gist of Grounds for Determination Whether Differences 1 and 2 from Cited
Invention Can Be Easily Conceived
A. Difference 1
The matter stated in Cited Document 5 is deemed to be "a polyethylene
terephthalate used for a sheet or film, which comprises: 50 mass % of a biomass
polyethylene terephthalate which has a biomass-derived ethylene glycol as a diol unit
and a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid as a dicarboxylic acid unit; and apolyethylene terephthalate consisting of a fossil fuel-derived raw material, wherein
the polyethylene terephthalate consisting of a fossil fuel-derived raw material has afossil fuel-derived ethylene glycol as a diol unit and a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic13acid as a dicarboxylic acid unit."
As a means of mitigating the depletion of petroleum resources and curbing theincrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide which is a causative substance of global
warming, it is a technical problem which can be normally considered by a person
ordinarily skilled in the art to use polyethylene terephthalate using a biologicallyproduced biomass material as a raw material instead of polyethylene terephthalate
consisting of only a petroleum-derived raw material.

Thus, there is a motivation touse a biomass-derived polyethylene terephthalate as a material of "a biaxially-oriented
polyethylene terephthalate film" in the Cited Invention.
With regard to an upper limit of "90 mass %" in Present Invention 1, its criticalsignificance cannot be recognized.
Therefore, a person ordinarily skilled in the art could have easily conceived ofmaking the structure of Present Invention 1 according to Difference 1 on the basis of
the Cited Invention and the matter stated in Cited Document 5.
B. Difference 2
In concretizing the Cited Invention, a person ordinarily skilled in the art could
have appropriately made "the heat sealable resin layer" which "consists of a film or
sheet of ethylene-α-olefin copolymer polymerized using a metallocene catalyst" in theCited Invention to be one which "consists of a resin material comprising a fossil fuelderived raw material and does not comprise a resin material comprising a biomass derived raw material."
C. Remarkable Function and Effect
The function and effect achieved by Present Invention 1 cannot be recognized
to be equal to or greater than the sum of the function and effect of the Cited Invention
and the matter stated in Cited Document 5, and are not particularly remarkable.
2. Grounds 2 for Rescission (Error in Determination on Inventive Step of Present
Invention Based on Cited Invention)(1) Plaintiff's Assertion
A. Present Invention 1(A) Error in Findings of Cited Invention and Findings on Common Feature andDifferencea. The Revocation Decision of the Present Case found the Cited Invention as
mentioned in 1(1) above.
However, according to the judgment rendered with regard to Cases 2016 (Gyo Ke) 10182 and 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10184 by the Intellectual Property High Court, Special
Division on April 13, 2018 (the so-called Grand Panel Judgment on the Pyrimidine
14Case), if there are an enormous number of alternatives about the technical elements
regarding the specification of the Cited Invention, unless there are circumstances
under which a specific technical idea pertaining to a specific alternative should be
actively or preferentially selected, the specific technical idea pertaining to the specificalternative cannot be extracted from the statement of the publication in question, andthis cannot be found as the Cited Invention.
In this regard, Cited Document 4 discloses a great variety of substrates whichconstitute a gas barrier laminate film as well as processing methods in [0022] and[0023].

Among the numerous combinations of substrate resin types and producing

methods, there are no circumstances under which the combination of biaxial
orientation and a polyester resin should be actively or preferentially selected.
Thus, the Revocation Decision of the Present Case is erroneous in finding theCited Invention.
b. Since the Revocation Decision of the Present Case is erroneous in finding theCited Invention, it is also erroneous in finding the common feature and difference
between the Cited Invention and the Present Invention.
(B) Error in Determination Whether Difference from Cited Invention Can Be
Easily Conceived
Even based on the premise of the findings of the Cited Invention and thecommon feature and difference between Present Invention 1 and the Cited Invention
in the Revocation Decision of the Present Case, it is erroneous in determining whether
the difference from the Cited Invention can be easily conceived.
a. Difference 1
There is no motivation to apply a biomass-derived polyethylene terephthalate
stated in Cited Document 5 as a PET resin of the "biaxially-oriented polyethylene
terephthalate film" in the Cited Invention.
At the time of the filing date of the original application, the concept of carbon
neutrality was not recognized as a well-known problem or common general technicalknowledge which must be achieved even at the sacrifice of the performanc e of PET
required for each intended use.
At least with regard to polyester resins, it is a matter of common generaltechnical knowledge that their practical realization as a replacement for conventional
fossil fuel-derived PET was considered to be particularly difficult due to effects ofvarious impurities derived from biomass raw materials (Unexamined Patent
Application Publication No. 2008-94884 [hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit Ko 17
document"], and Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2009 -209145
15

[hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit Ko 18 document"]).
In addition, [i] in Cited Document 4, where maintaining transparency is an
important problem, the problem of coloration due to impurities in ethylene glycol
derived from biomass resources had not been solved at the time of the filing date of
the original application (Exhibit Ko 18 document, [0006]), [ii] in the Cited Invention,
where the substrate consists of the biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate film,
Exhibit Ko 17 document suggests in [0008] that the moldability of polyester isadversely affected, [iii] in the Cited Invention, where high heat resistance is required([0010]), according to [0005] of International Publication No. WO 2013/035559(hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit Ko 19 document"), even at the time of the priority
date of the present case, it is considered that the problem of heat resistance in biomass
PET could not have been solved, [iv] in the Cited Invention, where a gas barrier
property is considered as an important problem, Unexamined Patent Application
Publication No. 2015-36208 (hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit Ko 15 document")suggests in [0007] that gas barrier performance is remarkably affected by using
biomass-derived polyesters, and Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
2018-35338 (hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit Ko 21 document") in [0062] statesthat there was a problem that uneven density and unevenly distributed crystallinity
were likely to occur in biomass-derived polyester resins.

In view of the above, there

is an obstructive factor to apply the structure of Difference 1 to the Cited Invention.
b. Difference 2
The Revocation Decision of the Present Case determines that, in concretizing
the Cited Invention, a person ordinarily skilled in the art could have appropriately
made "the heat sealable resin layer" which "consists of a film or sheet of ethylene -αolefin copolymer polymerized using a metallocene catalyst" in the Cited Invention to
be one which "consists of a resin material comprising a fossil fuel-derived raw
material and does not comprise a resin material comprising a biomass-derived raw
material."

However, the Revocation Decision of the Present Case does not provide

the reasoning for using a biomass-derived raw material only for polyester in the firstlayer and for daring to adopt an aspect of the second layer which consists of a resinmaterial comprising a fossil fuel-derived raw material and does not comprise a resinmaterial comprising a biomass-derived raw material while being conscious of carbon
neutrality.
c. Remarkable Function and Effect
In Working Examples 1 to 3 of the description of the present case, a laminate
which satisfies the structure of the Present Invention is used to compare with a film
16

prepared by replacing the above-mentioned biomass PET film with the conventional
fossil fuel-derived PET film, and it is shown to bear comparison in physical properties
with a laminate having layers consisting of the already-existing polyester film.
At the time of the priority date of the present case, the common generaltechnical knowledge was that when using biomass polyester, the presence of
impurities makes molding and processing difficult and particularly makes it difficult
to fulfill the performance which can be utilized in oriented films, etc.

In view of thiscommon general technical knowledge at the time of the priority date of the present
case, it can be deemed to be clear that the above-mentioned effect is beyond the scope
where a person ordinarily skilled in the art could have predicted from the structure.
B. Present Inventions 2 to 14
All of Present inventions 2 to 14 directly or indirectly depend on Present
Invention 1.

Thus, the assertion mentioned in A above naturally applies to thedetermination of inventive step for Present Inventions 2 to 14.
(2) Defendant's Assertion
A. Present Invention 1(A) Error in Findings of Cited Invention and Findings of Common Feature andDifferencea. The so-called Grand Panel Judgment on the Pyrimidine Case according to thecitation by the Plaintiff differs from the present case in that in the Pyrimidine Case,
there were an enormous number of alternatives including at least 20 million or more
possibilities in the general formula with regard to technical elements for specifying
the Cited Invention.
From the problem ([0011]), the means for solving the problem ([0145]), thestatement on heat sealing ([0151] and subsequent paragraphs, in particular [0155] and[0157]), the statement of working examples ([0174] to [0222]), the description of the"substrate" which constitutes a gas barrier laminate film ([0022] and subsequentparagraphs, in particular [0023] and [0024]) in Cited Document 4, it can be deemedthat Cited Document 4 states a laminate material for packaging as a packaging bag,which is provided with "a gas barrier laminate film, a printed layer, a laminating
adhesive layer, and a heat sealing layer" sequentially, and the "gas barrier laminate
film" in which the substrate is a biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate film,
and the "heat sealable resin layer" which consists of a film or sheet of ethylene -αolefin copolymer polymerized using a metallocene catalyst.
Thus, the Revocation Decision of the Present Case is not erroneous in finding
the Cited Invention.
17

b. Since the Revocation Decision of the Present Case is not erroneous in finding
the Cited Invention, it is not also erroneous in finding the common feature anddifference between the Cited Invention and the Present Invention.
(B) Error in Determination Whether Difference from Cited Invention Can Be
Easily Conceived
a. Difference 1
It is a well-known technical problem "to provide polyethylene terephthalate
using a biologically-produced biomass material as a raw material instead ofpolyethylene terephthalate consisting of only a conventional petroleum-derived raw
material as a means of mitigating the depletion of petroleum resources and curbing theincrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide which is a causative substance of global
warming," which a person ordinarily skilled in the art can normally consider whenhandling PET.

Thus, there is a motivation to apply the matter stated in Cited

Document 5 (biomass-derived PET) to the Cited Invention.
The Plaintiff asserts that there is an obstructive factor to apply the structure ofDifference 1 to the Cited Invention.

However, Exhibit Ko 18 document does notpoint out the problem of biomass-derived raw materials.

In addition, the biomass-derived raw material in the working examples of the Present Patent and the biomassderived raw material in Cited Document 5 are both the same commercially available
product (description of the present case, [0075]; Cited Document 5, [0030]).

Even ifthere were problems such as heat resistance, gas barrier property, uneven density, andunevenly distributed crystallinity, it can be deemed that the practical realization in asimilar manner to the Present Patent was possible.

Thus, the Plaintiff's assertion is

improper.
b. Difference 2
The motivation to use a biomass-derived raw material for any of the resin
layers in the Cited Invention on the basis of general problems and well-known
technical problems can be well recognized, and conversion to biomass as a productcan be achieved by making any of the layers to be biomass-derived.

Based on these,

it is a design matter which could have been easily performed by a person ordinarily
skilled in the art that only one of the two resin layers in the Cited Invention is madebiomass-derived and the other layer is made conventionally petroleum fuel-derived.
c. Remarkable Function and Effect
The biomass-derived raw material in the working examples of Cited Document
5 is the same commercially available product as the biomass-derived raw material in
the working examples of the Present Patent.
18

Thus, the function and effect achieved

by the Present Invention are within the scope which a person ordinarily skilled in theart could have predicted from the Cited Invention and the matter stated in Cited
Document 5.
B. Present Inventions 2 to 14
The Revocation Decision of the Present Case is not erroneous in determining
an inventive step of Present Invention 1, and the Revocation Decision of the Present
Case is also not erroneous in determining an inventive step of Present Inventions 2 to
14.
3. Grounds 3 for Rescission (Violation of Procedure)(1) Plaintiff's Assertion
A. The Japan Patent Office has published "Flowchart of Opposition to Granted
Patent (Detailed Version)" on its web page, showing the details of the procedures forfiling an opposition to a granted patent (Exhibit Ko 22).

In oppositions, the practiceis established so that at least two opportunities to submit a written opinion and arequest for correction are usually given through a first notice of grounds forrevocation and an advance notice of decision.

According to the above-mentioned

flowchart, an advance notice of decision will be absolutely issued only when a reason
for revocation pointed out in a first notice of grounds for revocation remains
unresolved, and it is not supposed that an advance notice of decision is issued for areason completely different from a reason for revocation notified in the first notice.
In addition, from Article 12, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Administrative Procedure
Act, especially in the case of rendering adverse dispositions such as revoking a patentright once granted, an adverse procedure cannot be taken against the patentee contrary
to the procedure published by itself unless there are special circumstances.
The advance notice of decision in the present case (Exhibit Ko 5) points out a
new reason for revocation in which the primarily cited reference itself is completely
different, and thus falls under the case where it cannot be determined that the patentcan be revoked due to the noticed grounds for revocation in the above-mentioned
flowchart.
Even if a new reason for revocation is notified, a first notice of grounds forrevocation which is not an advance notice of decision should be notified.
In view of the foregoing, the issuance of the advance notice of decision on thebasis of only the new reason for revocation is a procedure which remarkably deviatesfrom the discretion of the administrative judge, and affects the conclusion of thedecision.
B. Even if it is allowable to issue an advance notice of decision on the basis of19

only a new reason for revocation, taking the special circumstances into consideration,
it was necessary to ensure an opportunity to submit a written opinion and a written
request for correction by issuing a new advance notice of decision.

In the present

case, such a procedure was not taken.
(2) Defendant's Assertion
A. In view of Article 120-5 of the Patent Act, the Act does not provide that theidentical reason for revocation must be notified twice in a "notice of grounds forrevocation" and in a subsequent "notice of grounds for revocation which is an advancenotice of decision."
Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to dispositions
under the Patent Act pursuant to Article 195-3 of the Patent Act.
In an opposition to a granted patent, it is well known from the JPO's Manual
for Trial and Appeal Proceedings that the second notice of grounds for revocation is,in principle, an "advance notice of decision."
B. Even if the notice of grounds for revocation was a "notice of grounds forrevocation which is an advance notice of decision," there is no distinction under the
Patent Act from a mere "notice of grounds for revocation," and in either case, an
opportunity to submit a written opinion is given and the scope which can be corrected
is the same.

Therefore, it does not violate the provision of Article 120-5, paragraph(1) of the Patent Act to have failed to twice issue a notice of grounds for revocation
citing Cited Document 4 as the primarily cited reference.

20

(Attachment 2)[Technical Field][0001]The present invention relates to a laminate having a layer which consists of abiomass polyester resin composition obtained from a plant-derived raw material, andmore particularly to a laminate having a first layer which consists of a resin
composition comprising polyester using a biomass-derived ethylene glycol as a diol
component.
[Background Art]
[0003]In recent years, as calls for the development of a recycling-oriented society
increase, a departure from fossil fuels has been desired in the materials sector as wellas in the energy sector, and the utilization of biomass has been attracting attention.
Biomass is an organic compound photosynthesized from carbon dioxide and water,
and is utilized thereby to become carbon dioxide and water again, a so-called carbon
neutral renewable energy.

Recently, the practical realization of biomass plastics

using such biomass as raw materials has been progressing rapidly, and attempts arealso being made to produce polyester, a general-purpose polymer material, from thesebiomass raw materials.
[Summary of the Invention][Problem to be Solved by the Invention][0007]The present inventors focused on ethylene glycol, which is a raw material forpolyesters, and obtained the findings that a polyester using a plant -derived ethylene
glycol as a raw material instead of ethylene glycol obtained from a conventional fossil
fuel bears comparison in physical properties such as mechanical properties with apolyester produced using ethylene glycol obtained from a conventional fossil fuel.
In addition, the present inventors obtained the findings that a laminate having a layer
which consists of such a biomass-derived polyester also bears comparison in physicalproperties such as mechanical properties with a laminate consisting of a raw material
obtained from a conventional fossil fuel.

The present invention is based on suchfindings.
[0008]
Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide a laminate having alayer consisting of a resin composition containing a carbon neutral polyester using abiomass ethylene glycol and to provide a laminate of a polyester resin film which
21

bears comparison in physical properties such as mechanical properties with a laminate
produced from a raw material obtained from a conventional fossil fuel.
[Means for Solving the Problem][0009]
A laminate according to the present invention has at least two layers,
wherein a first layer consists of a biaxially-oriented resin film, wherein a resin
composition which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises a polyester
consisting of a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit as the main compon ent, whereinsaid polyester comprises: a biomass-derived polyester in which said diol unit is abiomass-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel derived terephthalic acid; and a fossil fuel-derived polyester in which said diol unit isa fossil fuel-derived ethylene glycol and said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel derived terephthalic acid, wherein said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises 90
mass % or less of said biomass-derived polyester,wherein a second layer consists of a resin material comprising a fossil fuelderived raw material and does not comprise a resin material comprising a biomass derived raw material.
[Advantageous Effect of the Invention][0020]
According to the present invention, in a laminate having at least two layers, alaminate having a layer consisting of carbon neutral resins can be achieved by that afirst layer consists of a biaxially-oriented resin film, wherein a resin composition
which constitutes said biaxially-oriented resin film comprises a polyester consistingof a diol unit and a dicarboxylic acid unit, wherein said polyester comprises: abiomass-derived polyester in which said diol unit is a biomass-derived ethylene glycoland said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid; and a fossil
fuel-derived polyester in which said diol unit is a fossil fuel-derived ethylene glycoland said dicarboxylic acid unit is a fossil fuel-derived terephthalic acid, wherein said
biaxially-oriented resin film comprises 90 mass % or less of said biomass-derived
polyester.

Therefore, the amount of fossil fuels used can be greatly reduced ascompared to the conventional art, and the environmental burden can be reduced.

Inaddition, the laminate of the polyester resin composition of the present invention usesa polyester resin composition which bears comparison in physical properties such asmechanical properties with a laminate of a polyester resin composition produced froma raw material obtained from a conventional fossil fuel, and can therefore replace theconventional laminate of the polyester resin composition.
22