★★★ ＜第25回知的財産翻訳検定試験【第12回英文和訳】＞ ★★★
≪１級課題 -知財法務実務-≫【解答にあたっての注意】
１．問題の指示により和訳してください。
２．解答語数に特に制限はありません。適切な箇所で改行してください。
３．課題文に段落番号がある場合、これを訳文に記載してください。
４．課題は２題あります。それぞれの課題の指示に従い、２題すべて解答してください。

［設問１］下に示す英文は、アメリカ特許商標庁の Patent Trial and Appeal
Board での決定に対する控訴事件において、Court of Appeals for FederalCircuit (CAFC)によってされた判決から抜粋したものです。この英文の下線を付した部分を日本語に翻訳してください。なお、下線部に含まれる語句のうち、引用されている判決名、文献名等、及び当事者の名称 Whirlpool は、日本語に翻訳せずそのまま転記してください。
問題文ここから→（前略）
DISCUSSION
IAnticipation is a two-step analysis. The first step is properlyinterpreting the claims. Beachcombers v. Wilde Wood Creative Prods., Inc.,
31 F.3d 1154, 1160 (Fed.Cir. 1994). The second step is determining whether
the limitations of the claims, as properly interpreted, are met by the prior art.
Id. The Board determined that Wulf did not anticipate the ’688 patentbecause its disclosures did not meet the “settling speed” limitation. J.A. 14.
However, the Board did “not adopt any explicit construction of the term for[its] Final Written Decision,” J.A. 7, even though the parties disagreed as toclaim construction. Just as district courts must, “[w]hen the parties raise an
actual dispute regarding the proper scope of . . . claims,. . . resolve thatdispute,” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,

1360 (Fed. Cir.2008), the Board also must resolve such disputes in thecontext of IPRs. See CSR, PLC v. Skullcandy, Inc., 594 F.App’x 672, 678 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (holding that “[t]he Board erred by failing to construe ‘thresholdvalue’ as it is used in claims 1-6 before finding that [prior art reference]
Smith failed to disclose a ‘threshold value’” in anticipation). Given that theBoard did not rely on extrinsic evidence here as to claim construction, we candetermine the correct construction of “settling speed” and then determine
whether the Board correctly held that Wulf does not meet the limitations ofclaim 1. Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841.
“[T]he claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all caseswith the actual words of the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per
Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Here, therelevant language of claim 1 provides that during pulsing, “the speed of thecutter assembly is reduced from the operating speed to a predeterminedsettling speed.” ’688 patent, col. 7 ll. 15-17 (emphasis added).
Whirlpool proposes that “a predetermined settling speed” means “aspeed, greater than zero, that indicates that items have settled around thecutter assembly.” Appellee’s Br. 43. At times on appeal, Whirlpool argues
that empirical testing is required to establish a settling speed. Whirlpool
recognizes that empirical testing would require determining the settling
speed for each individual blender and its content load, “[b]ecause so manyfactors affect the settling speed.” Appellee’s Br. 9; see also id. at 45; Oral Arg.
18:16-25 (skilled artisans looking at the ’688 patent would “perform tests todetermine . . . at what point in time [the blender ingredients] settles to arriveat the predetermined settling speed”). We conclude that a construction thatwould require empirical testing is incorrect. Indeed, the dissent also does notendorse a claim construction that requires empirical testing.
（後略）←問題文ここまで参考

問題文の裁判で審理の対象となった米国特許のクレーム１
1. A cycle of operation for a blender comprising a motor, a container

for holding items for processing, and a cutter assembly located within thecontainer and operably coupled to the motor whereby the motor effects therotation of the cutter assembly, the cycle comprising:automatically controlling a rotational speed of the cutter assembly toeffect a pulsing of the speed of the cutter assembly wherein each pulse
comprises:(A) a constant speed phase, where the operating speed of the cutter
assembly is maintained at a predetermined operating speed,(B) a deceleration phase, where the speed of the cutter assembly is
reduced from the operating speed to a predetermined settling speed
indicative of the items in the container having settled around the cutter
assembly, which is less than the operating speed and greater than zero, and(C) an acceleration phase, where the speed of the cutter assembly isincreased from the settling speed to the operating speed.

［設問２］以下の問題文は、日本国の商標登録を受けている商標に関する商標譲渡契約（架空）の抜粋です。この問題文全部を日本語に翻訳してください。
翻訳に際しては、次の各注意事項を遵守してください。注意事項を遵守していない答案については、減点対象となる場合もあります。
注記１：

注記２：

契約書中において特別に定義されている用語（先頭大文字の用語です。以下「定義語」といいます。）については、翻訳文でも定義語であることが一目瞭然となるように訳語を工夫してください。
翻訳文だけを読んでも内容を正確に且つ容易に理解できるよう、契約書として自然な日本語訳を心がけてください。必要であれば、内容の正確性が担保される限りにおいて、一文を区切って二文で表現するなど、工夫を凝らしていただいて構いません。

問題文ここから→
1.

Assignment.

Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all rights, title andinterest (collectively, the "Rights") in or to the trademark as identified
in Exhibit 1 hereto (the "Trademark") insofar as the territory of Japan(the "Territory") is concerned and only in respect of the goods andservices as so specified in Exhibit 1 hereto (the "Relevant Goods"), andalso agrees to execute all evidentiary documents as are required forAssignee to register such assignment in the Japan Patent Office (the"JPO") (collectively, the "Executed Papers") and deliver such Executed
Papers to Assignee. The Assignor's assignment of the Trademark anddelivery of such Executed Papers shall be, however, expressly
conditioned upon: (i) Assignor having received from Assignee the full
payment of the Sales Price (defined below) for and in consideration ofsuch assignment no later than November 30, 2017 by means oftelegraphic remittance of such amount to the bank account as
designated by Assignor; and (ii) the Assignee's execution of thisAgreement and delivery of the same to Assignor no later than the samedate.
2.

Reservation.

Any and all other Rights in or to the Trademark notexpressly provided herein as assigned to Assignee shall be reserved toAssignor, which shall include without limitation any Rights in respectof any goods and services other than the Relevant Goods anywhere in
the universe and in respect of the Relevant Goods in all other territories
than the Territory and the Rights in or to any other marks currently or
hereafter in use by Assignor or its authorized assignee or licensee
anywhere in the universe, whether or not such marks or the goods
and/or services to which such marks pertain are confusingly similar toor competing with the Trademark or the Relevant Goods. Assignee
hereby expressly agrees and covenants to not enforce any rights under
the Trademark against Assignor or its authorized assignee or licensee
in connection with any use of such marks in the Territory, whether inlaw or equity, and further to not oppose to, interfere with or otherwise

obstruct any such use and any proceeding initiated by Assignor before
anygovernment

authority

orcourt(includingthetrademark

registration process before the JPO) in connection with such marks inthe Territory.
←問題文ここまで