2 Desirable Ways to Examine and Implement Use Inventions

There is a growing need for claims regarding use inventions along with the progress in technology
development in pharmaceutical and other technical fields and diversification of technical fields. This study
aimed to categorize problems extracted from the previous year's study and sufficiently discuss desirable ways to
examine and implement use inventions in Japan, thereby contributing to the process for revising the
Examination Guidelines.
Use inventions are described with diverse claim expressions. The novelty of a use invention described by a
product claim may be determined by distinction by use or distinction by form. Study was conducted as to "aclaim of a raw material defined by the use thereof" and "limitation by use and property in the alloy field." As fora medical use invention that may not be described by a process claim, it was deemed to be appropriate todetermine its patentability on the condition that either the product defined by the process or the use defined by theprocess is acknowledged as being novel. Study was also conducted regarding how to satisfy the description
requirements including the enablement requirement and submitted pharmacological test data. Analysis was also
conducted from the perspective of international comparison and of legal matters.

Ⅰ Background and Purpose of the2004 Study
There is a growing need for claims regarding
use inventions along with the progress intechnology development and diversification oftechnical fields where patent protection isdemanded. However, protection of a use inventiondiffers among major countries, and multilateralconferences have been held with the aim ofdeveloping
commonguidelinesfortheinterpretation and implementation of special
claims including a claim defining a product by
its particular use (product - by - use claim).
Furtheremore, under the Examination Guidelines
in Japan, there are no clear provisions on how tohandle use inventions and only general guidelines
have been provided. The various industries
demand more concrete and easer-to-understandexamination guidelines for use inventions.
As a recent movement in this respect, the"Task Force on the Protection of Patents ofMedical-Related Acts" in the Strategic Council onIntellectual Property, in its arrangement as ofNovember 22, 2004, indicated a major policy forthe examination and implementation of use
inventions. The study group also discussed thepossibilityofprotecting
pharmaceuticalinventions as inventions of products in the formof claims for use inventions. Under suchcircumstances, the importance of use inventions
will be intensified in the future.
In 2003, the "Study on the Examination and
Implementation of Use Inventions in Major
Countries" was conducted to specify problems
relating to use inventions in individual technicalfields, analyze judicial precedents, and understand

IIP Bulletin 2005

the current practices at the patent offices in the
United States and Europe. However, this study
failed to adequately discuss desirable ways tointerpret and implement use inventions in Japan,
by pointing out existing problems based on thesurvey results and proposing solutions thereto.
The study in 2004 aimed to discuss desirable
ways to examine and implement use inventions
based on the results of the 2003 study, thereby
making it possible to start the process forrevising the examination guidelines for use
inventions.

Ⅱ Summary of the 2003 Study and
the Purpose of the 2004 Study
1

Problems Extracted from the Results ofthe 2003 Study

In Japan, a use invention is an invention(which can be either an invention of a product oran invention of a process) based on a discovery ofa new method of using a product focused on aparticular property of the product. It may bedescribed by a product-by-use claim, process
claim, or use claim (a medical use invention
cannot be described by a process claim or use
claim). In the United States, a use invention ishandled only as an invention of a process, and a
medical use invention is described by a process
claim. In Europe, a use invention in nonpharmaceutical fields may be described by aprocess claim or use claim whereas in the medical
field, first medical use inventions are accepted in
the form of product-by-use claims as an exception,and second medical use inventions are expressedin the form of Swiss-type claims.

● 10 ●

In Japan, when the novelty of a use invention
is examined, the provisions of the Examination
Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model, Part II,
Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step 1.5.2(2)"Claim statements defining a product by its use(limitation by use)" shall be applicable. However,since the comments in the guidelines are
abstruse and unclear, more concrete andeasier-to-understand guidelines are desired.
The 2003 study focused on four technicalfields ― pharmaceutical, cosmetic/food, chemical
and alloy fields, and extracted the following
problems and needs.

-

2[1] Pharmaceutical field
Separately from conventionally known
special use claims that are based on thewording in claims, there are special use
claims that occur to avoid process claims
relating to medical treatment.
Examination guidelines are unclear withregard to the claim description requirements
for inventions that are defined by apharmacological mechanism called "R-receptor
antagonism," that is, "R-receptor antagonist
composed of compound X" and "therapeutic
agent for disease Y composed of R-receptor
antagonistic compound."In Japan, pharmacological test data on
medical use inventions are required upon thefiling of patent applications, and it shall not
be accepted if it is submitted thereafter. The
trilateral patent offices are not harmonizedon whether it is allowable to submit
pharmacological test data after the filing ofpatent applications in order to recover fromthe violation of the disclosure requirement.
[2] Cosmetics/food fields
In the cosmetic/food fields, inventions
created based on the discovery of a new
function of a publicly known natural material
are often expressed in agent claims. Formsof expressions of such claims should be
unified.
If an invention claimed as a "method of
make-up" is judged to fall under the scope of"surgical, therapeutic or diagnostic methods,"
it shall be excluded from the scope of"industrially applicable inventions."[3] Chemicals field
There seem to be no practical problems.
[4] Alloy field
The former Examination Guidelines byindustry provided that the use (or property)of the invention must be described in theclaim. In accordance with this provision,
inventions relating to alloys are still claimed

with limitation by use, irrespective ofwhether they are novel alloys or publicly
known alloys.
Where an invention relating to an alloy isclaimed with limitation by its particularproperty, e.g. "heat-resistant alloy having acomposition of…," the scope of right for theinvention would be unclear and two or more
use patents that are defined by properties orfunctions would be established with respect
to an alloy with a particular composition/
constitution.
Line of the 2004 Study

The 2004 study categorized the problems
extracted from the 2003 study, by causes, into
"problems arising from the existence of diverse
claim expressions," "problems arising from the
non-acceptance of process claims in thepharmaceutical field," and "problems relating to
the description requirements."[1] Diverse claim expressions
A use invention can be expressed as either"an invention of a product" or "an invention of aprocess." There are diverse types of claims, andthis makes the interpretation of claims
complicated. Problems also arise because claim
expressions chosen by applicants according totheir needs are often not accepted as they wish.
Inthechemicalfields(including
thecosmetic/food fields) and alloy field, it is unclear
from claim expressions whether the claim
expressions containing limitation by use signify ause invention or an invention of a new productwith limitation by use. In the alloy field, there areinventions of products defined by property inaddition to those defined by use, and this may
cause problems in terms of the interpretation ofclaims. Consequently, the 2004 study focused on
the following points.
① Existence of diverse claim expressions
depending on the categories of inventions② Approach to obtain patent by claiming a raw
material defined by the use thereof in thematerials industries③ Limitation by property and use in the alloy
field[2] Non-acceptance of process claims
In Japan, surgical, therapeutic or diagnostic
methods are not included in the scope ofindustrially applicable inventions, and a medical
use invention cannot be claimed as an inventionof a process. For this reason, most medical use
inventions have been protected in the form ofagent claims. However, as more applications are
filed for inventions in the fields of medical
technology and clinical studies where remarkable● 11 ●IIP Bulletin 2005

progress has been made in recent years, problems
arise from the non-acceptance of process claims
for such medical-related inventions. This issue,
which is only seen in the pharmaceutical field,
was examined in the 2004 study.
[3] Problems concerning the description
requirements
The amendment to the Examination
Guidelines in 1995 eased the requirements fordescribing claims. However, the revised guidelines
are unclear with regard to claim expressions foruse inventions. Study was conducted as towhether or not there were problems in terms ofthe description requirements. In the pharmaceuticalfield, focus was placed again on the description
requirements for agent claims such as "R-receptor
antagonist composed of compound X" and"therapeutic agent for disease Y composed of
R-receptor antagonistic compound." that recently
appeared along with the discovery of diseaserelated genes and clarification of pharmacologicalmechanisms thereof (Section 36(6) of the Patent
Law), as well as the requirements for the detailed
descriptionoftheinvention
includingpharmacological test data (Section 36(4)(i) of the
Patent Law).
[4] Analysis from the perspective ofinternational comparison and legal
matters
Based on the results of the study of the
problems mentioned above, analysis was also
conducted from the perspective of international
harmonization and of legal matters in the phasesof the granting and enforcement of patent.

Ⅲ Diverse
Claim
Expressions
Depending on the Categories ofInventions
As the criteria for defining use inventions
and determining the novelty thereof, thecomments in 1.5.2(2) of the Examination
Guidelines should be further clarified, by
explicitly distinguishing ② “a product that is to
be used solely for the purpose,” which seems to
be directed to use inventions, from ① “a productthat is particularly suitable for the stated use.”
Whether the claimed invention falls under ① or
② should be judged while taking into account thesubstance of the invention or technical idea. If thegist of the descriptions is questionable, third
party confidence should be protected by broadlyinterpreting the scope of claims.
A use invention expressed in a product claim
may be basically interpreted from two different
perspectives. A use invention may be defined by
the development of the new use of a product, andits novelty may be acknowledged if such use can

IIP Bulletin 2005

be distinguished, based on the limitation in theclaim, from the publicly known use of the product(distinction by use). A use invention may also be
defined by the structure or form of a product thatis particularly suitable for the stated use, and its
novelty may be acknowledged if the product withsuch structure or form can be distinguished fromthe product with the structure or form that issuitable for other use (distinction by form).
Although both perspectives have both good andbad points, it seems to be appropriate to adopt thetheory of distinction by use if importance is to bebasically placed on maintaining the conventional
way of protection. On the other hand, if the aim is
to correct the examination practices with theobjective of achieving harmonization in theprovisions of the Examination Guidelines, thetheory of distinction by form may be adopted (inthe non-pharmaceutical fields); however, in thiscase, sufficient explanation should be given to
applicants and other parties concerned.
Under the theory of distinction by use,
controversy may occur over the appropriatenessof the method of judging whether or not theclaimed use is different from the publicly known
use based on the difference in terms of the "scopeof application." In this respect, consideration
should be given to allowing substantial
examination as to whether or not it is possible totechnically distinguish between the uses. On theother hand, should the theory of distinction byform be adopted, there might be no need toprovide for "Claim statements defining a productby its use" [1.5.2(2)②] separately from "Claimstatements defining a product by its function,
characteristics, etc." [1.5.2(1)] under the
Examination Guidelines. Another possible
approach would be to acknowledge, in accordancewith the theory of distinction by form, the noveltyof a use invention as an invention of a productwith a particular indication (e.g. a label), while
regarding such indication as part of the form of
the product, but this would not be appropriate as a
general approach. Nevertheless, it may beunreasonable, at least in respect of a medical use
invention, to always require substantial differencein the claimed invention from the publicly known
invention as a product, while rejecting such
constructive difference made by a particular
indication.
"Agent claims," which are often adopted foruse inventions, should be considered as a type of
product claims, because it is difficult to adopt
different criteria for determining the novelty of
inventions described by agent claims. As forprocess claims (including use claims), it isreasonable to acknowledge the novelty if theclaimed use can be distinguished from thepublicly known use, irrespective of the criteria
for product claims.

● 12 ●

Ⅳ Problems in Individual TechnicalFields and Solutions TheretoA

Patent Protection by Claimes of a Raw
Material Defined by the Use thereof in
the Materials Industries
In the case of a use invention relating to a
publicly known substance Z, by claiming theinvention as "product Y consisting of substance Z"
the company that manufactures and sells productY can obtain patent to directly protect its own
product. Similarly, if the company that
manufactures and sells a material productsuccessfully obtains patent claiming the material
with limitation by use for a use invention relating
to its own product, by adopting a claim form thatstarts with the substance of its own product (e.g.
compound Z for pesticide) or claim form thatstarts with the ingredient or composition
consisting of the substance, the company canenforce the patent directly against its competitors(other materials manufactures). Such claim forms
will satisfy the needs of manufacturers in thematerials industries.
In Part II, Chapter 2, Section 1.5.2(2) of thecurrent Examination Guidelines, which explains
the criteria for determining the novelty, thecomments concerning "compound Z for pesticide"are unclear because they set some conditions forthe determination. Since “compound Z” is theproper name of a chemical substance and no
adjective or modifier would change its chemical
structure, it cannot be deemed to fall under ①“a product that is particularly suitable for thestated use. ” Consequently, it is necessary to
examine whether or not it falls under ② “ aproduct that is to be used solely for the purpose,”but the Examination Guidelines indicate noconcrete requirements and leave this issue to thedetermination by individual technical fields.
When a use invention is claimed as "aninvention of a product," it is often expressed as anunspecified product for a specific use consistingof a specific product that is publicly known (e.g.
composition for pesticide consisting of compound
Z). When this approach is adopted, the scope ofsuch unspecified product can be limited by thetwo specific requirements. However, the scope of"a substance with a proper name that is alreadyspecified," such as "compound Z," cannot be
further narrowed. In this respect, study was
conducted as to whether or not it would beappropriate to require the product, the use ofwhich was limited in the claim, to be an
unspecified product that was usually describedwith a general noun.
If a use invention can be distinguished by theform (e.g. type of agent), package or indication
applied for or attached to the product, its novelty
can be determined by examining whether or not it

falls under ① above, but it may not be
substantially distinguished from the product per
se that is not defined by the newly discovered use.
In such case where a use invention cannot be
distinguished in terms of the structure of the
product, its novelty is determined by examining
whether or not it falls under ② “a product thatis to be used solely for the purpose.” In thisrespect, ② can be regarded as the criterion
directed to use inventions. In this respect,consideration was conducted as to whether or not
it would be appropriate to regard a use invention
as "a product that is to be used solely for the
purpose," if the claimed use could be
distinguished from the publicly known use interms of the scope of application of the product.
B

Problems Arising from Limitation by
Property and Use in the Alloy Field
Most inventions of materials are created as
results of R&D activities that are aimed to bringabout the targeted chemical or physicalproperties. In the alloy field, most inventions are
created similarly, and they are claimed withlimitation by "use" and "property." Following theprevious year's study, the 2004 study examinedthe consistency between the meanings of theseterms and the Examination Guidelines forlimitation by use.
The concept of a use invention is not only
applicable to particular fields, but someinventions in the alloy field also meet thedevelopmental pattern of use inventions. Evenfrom the descriptions of the claims or the
specification, it is usually impossible todetermine whether or not an invention relating toan alloy meets the developmental pattern of a use
invention, i.e. "an invention based on a discovery
of a new method of using a product focused on aparticular property of the product." In the case of
an invention relating to an alloy, the product isoften defined by its use or property. Consequently,
as in other technical fields, there are "inventionsof patentable products for uses newly discovered"and "inventions of patentable products forcommon uses," and also "inventions of patentableproducts defined by the use" in the alloy field. In
this respect, study was conducted as to whether it
would be possible to appropriately express aninvention in the alloy field, without describing the"use" of the product or by assuming that the
product was not defined by the use.
Another question was how to interpret thewording of ② “a product that is to be used solely
for the purpose, ” which is provided in the
Examination Guidelines for limitation by use.
This question was examined in terms of theconsistency with inventions recognized as being
novel because of the distinctive status of use, andthe difference between inventions of compounds● 13 ●IIP Bulletin 2005

and other inventions.
The current Examination Guidelines underwhich "property" is regarded as "use" areappropriate for examining inventions of alloys,
but it is impossible to determine, by appearance,
whether or not the description of the property
defines the product. A proposal was made as to
how to solve this problem under the Examination
Guidelines, which are applicable to all technicalfields.
C

Problems Specific to the Pharmaceutical
Field
Following the previous year's study, the 2004
study analyzed the causes of disparity between
the substance of a medical use invention and its
technical scope in the case of a patent relating toa medical use invention where a process element
was present in the claim, and examined thepossibility and limit for solving this issue.
The approach taken for this study was toanalyze the claims for patented use inventions
that had technical features relating to ways ofusing medicine. More specifically, the structure of
the claim for each patented invention was
analyzed and compared with the substance of theinvention, and the results of the analysis andcomparison were examined.
The results of the study can be outlined asfollows. A patent relating to a medical use
invention is defined by the product claim, and it
consists of three elements, i.e. product, use, andprocess, with the use and process elements
defining the invention of the product. However,
due to lack of clear guidelines on how to define
the technical scope of a medical use invention by
the process element, the technical scope for suchinvention cannot be clearly defined, which causes
instability to the right. Problems are also found in
the way of claiming a medical use invention as aninvention of a product while using such terms
that are not directly relevant to the substance of
the invention. A medical use invention is definedby the selected product and process, andtherefore importance lies in the relationshipbetween the invention and these elements.
Although there are no clear provisions in the
Examination Guidelines on how to handle eachelement in the claim of a medical use invention,
the analysis of judicial precedents suggests thatcourts regard a use invention as an invention
based on a discovery of a particular property of a
product, and this implies that a use invention canbe acknowledged as being novel if either the
product or the use thereof is novel. The processelement cannot be treated as a property of a
product due to lack of clear provisions in theguidelines to that effect, but considering that any
limitation of the process has a significant impact
on the use, the process element and the use

IIP Bulletin 2005

element should be regarded as being inseparablefrom each other in defining a medical use
invention. A use invention should be
acknowledged as being novel if either the productdefined by the process or the use defined by theprocess is acknowledged as being novel. However,this approach does not seem to be applicable tothe examination of patentability of all use
inventions. There is also a view that the noveltyof an invention of a product should only be
determined based on the product or property
thereof. Consequently, study should also be
conducted as to how to protect medical use
inventions that are defined by processes.

Ⅴ Problems
Relating
toDescription Requirements

theThe 2003 study pointed out that the current
Examination Guidelines for use inventions were
not sufficiently clear. The 2004 study took up themost suitable cases relating to use inventions inindividual technical fields and clarified theinterpretation and implementation of the
Examination Guidelines, with the aim ofproposing revisions to the guidelines forachieving high predictability and stability in theexamination.
In the current Examination Guidelines, useinventions are addressed in Part II, Chapter 2,
1.5.2(2), but the provisions in this section
indicate rules on how to determine the difference
between products, and they cannot be directly
applied to use inventions. It is rather necessary
to provide for new guidelines specifically for use
inventions by which the difference between use
inventions relating to the same product isdetermined by the difference in the use of the
product. If a use invention is considered to be an
invention that includes a series of general ways ofusing the product, when it is modified by a special
way of use of the same product, which is beyond
the range of general ways of use, it can be
expressed as an invention relating to a specificconcept of use that is subordinate to the genericconcept of use. For instance, an invention relating
to a particular "usage or dose" of a medical
product can be regarded as a selection invention
relating to the use of the medical product.
Meanwhile, in order to prevent the grantingof a patent for which the scope is not clearly
defined, examples should be provided in the
Examination Guidelines for individual technicalfields in terms of expressions of the claims thatclearly indicate that the claimed inventions areuse inventions. A claim form that is expressedwith a pharmacological mechanism should be
deemed to be unclear unless it is obvious basedon technical common knowledge that the productis to be used for treating a specific disease. Also,● 14 ●

a claim that is expressed only with the function or
characteristics of a compound, without defining
its structure, should be accepted only in the casewhere the invention cannot be expressed
otherwise, and there should be no more
exceptions.
Under the current Examination Guidelinesthat only require the descriptions of "how to use"and "how to make" an invention so as to satisfy
the enablement requirement, it might be argued
that it would suffice to give detailed instructions
on how to make a trial of the invention. However,the support requirement should be implemented
in addition to the enablement requirement inorder to ensure a use invention will be
sufficiently disclosed based on necessary
pharmacological test data.
The author of this report recommends
handling the support requirement separately fromthe enablement requirement, for the primaryreason that the author believes that suchseparation will reasonably explain to what extent
the pharmacological test data submitted after thefiling of a patent application should be taken into
consideration. Based on the recognition thatwhether or not an invention has completely been
made should be the criterion for determining thesatisfaction of the description requirements, theauthor suggests considering revisions to theguidelines in order to allow additional
pharmacological test data to be submitted after
the filing of a patent application to a certain
extent, so that for a use invention that has alreadybeen completely made or satisfied, the support
requirement will also be able to satisfy theenablement requirement.

Ⅵ Analysis from the Perspective ofInternational Comparison
The 2003 study already presented international
comparison in terms of patentability requirements.
The 2004 study made further analysis from theperspective of international comparison regarding
the Examination Guidelines for Medicinal
Invention, which are under development for the
first time at the Japan Patent Office (JPO). Thereis a difference between Japan and other countries
in terms of the handling of the support andenablement requirements, and further discussion
will be needed from the perspective ofharmonization in this respect.

Ⅶ Analysis
fromPerspective
1

the

Legal

Positioning of Use Invention under theJapanese Patent Law
Although the discussion had yet to reach a

specific
recommendation
and
had
only
summarized basic issues, useful suggestions
were made based on the analysis of thepharmaceutical field and other fields in this study.
In the future, we should continue concrete
discussion from the legislative perspective, while
taking international harmonization into account.
2

Pharmaceutical Issues(1) Study was conducted as to the interpretationand direction of the political consensus for
granting patents to medicinal inventions as"inventions of products," which was indicated in
the arrangement of the "Task Force on theProtection of Patents of Medical-Related Acts" in
the Strategic Council on Intellectual Property.
The necessity of providing by law the grounds forunpatentability and immunity for medical
practitioners was also pointed out.
(2) Study was also conducted as to problems in
the phase of the granting of patents for medicinal
inventions (novelty/inventive step). It wasdeemed to be a reasonable approach, in theexamination of a medicinal invention, to regard it
as a use invention of a product, and then, if the
medicinal invention could be defined by atechnical idea relating to a process, determine thepatentability of the medicinal invention by
examining the novelty and inventive step of theinvention as an invention of a product, rather than
examining it by applying the condition of "surgical,
therapeutic or diagnostic methods applied to thehuman body." As for a concrete method of
evaluating a technical idea relating to a process, it
was considered to be appropriate, in light of thesignificance of a use invention, to judge it by two
structural elements, the product and the medicaluse.
(3) With regard to problems in the phase of theenforcement of patents for medicinal inventions,
it was confirmed that uses other than thatspecified in the claim should be, in principle,
excluded from the technical scope of the use
invention. Study was also conducted as to joint
direct infringement in the scope of direct
infringement. As for indirect infringement, it wasreported that according to the court judgmentthat had applied Section 101, Subparagraphs (ii)and (iv) of the Patent Law as amended in 2002,
the scope of indirect infringement was broadened
drastically.
3

Other Discussion

The 2003 study already examined legal
matters on use inventions, including court
judgments in Japan and the overall discussion on
the scope of effect of patent. The 2004 study
examined other legal matters that have emerged● 15 ●IIP Bulletin 2005

as to how to treat medical-related inventions as
use inventions (VII. 2 of this report).
Furthermore, study was also conducted, based on
the discussion on other issues in this report, as towhether or not there was any possibility that a
use invention should be treated differently by law
from a general invention in the granting phaseand the enforcement phase or there was any
reasonable grounds for such treatment, and what
measures could be constructively taken should
there be such possibility. The definition of a use
invention applied in this report is based on thedefinition under the current JPO Examination
Guidelines, "an invention based on a discovery ofa new method of using a product focused on aparticular property of the product" (Part II,
Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step, 1.5.2
Method of Construing Particular Types of Claim
Statements: (2) Claim statements defining a
product by its use (limitation by use)).
More specifically, legal study was conducted
separately for the granting phase and theenforcement phase, focusing on the issues suchas whether or not there was any possibility that a
use invention, a specific type of invention, shouldbe treated differently in the interpretation andapplication of the Patent Law, and if there wassuch a possibility, in what cases and in which
direction the different treatment would be
required. As for problems in the granting phase,study was also conducted on the special
treatment of use inventions under the current
Examination Guidelines in terms of theevaluation on the novelty requirement and thewording in claims, as well as the determination ofother patentability requirements of use
inventions and how to satisfy the enablement
requirement by submitted pharmacological test
data. As for problems in the enforcement phase,study was conducted from the perspective of therelationships between diverse claim expressions
and categories of inventions, and theinterpretation of the scope of effect of patent
depending on the categories of inventions.
Conclusions of these studies can besummarized as follows.
In the course of the interpretation andapplication of the novelty and inventive steprequirements for a use invention, it is required bylaw to appropriately evaluate a technical idea of
the invention, focusing on the creativity in theuse. In order to achieve this objective, clear
provisions should be presented under the
Examination Guidelines. However, such provisions
will be designed rather flexibly and they will beless legally binding. How to satisfy thedescription
requirementsbysubmitting
pharmacological test data should basically beconsidered not as an issue specific to medical use
inventions but as medical-related inventions in

IIP Bulletin 2005

general. Under the current Examination
Guidelines, "use claims" are categorized fixedly asa type of process claims without clear legal
grounds. Considering the enforcement phase, or
the possibility that courts will interpret claims
differently (e.g. regard a use claim as defining an
invention of a product), there seems to be room
for slightly relaxing the treatment under the
Examination Guidelines.

Ⅷ Conclusion
Problems relating to the treatment of use
inventions in Japan were more difficult tounderstand and solve than initially expected, andheated debates were seen for some of these
problems. Although the discussion of someproblems failed to reach a uniform conclusion,
discussion was nevertheless so enthusiastic anddeep that the subsequent results will be of great
importance as references for future revisions to
the Examination Guidelines and the improvementin the interpretation and implementation of use
inventions.

● 16 ●(Senior researcher: Toshihiko Asano)