第１８回知的財産翻訳検定＜第１０回和文英訳＞
１級 知財法務実務 標準解答

解答例その１Start ---->The plaintiff argues that one can comprehend that the slant angle of the spiral groove
27 is approximately 20 degrees from Figure 2 in each of the specifications of the basic
applications and that it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on thefigures and the description in the specification that the range between 10 degrees and30 degrees can be set by adding 10 degrees to or subtracting 10 degrees from the medianof 20 degrees.
However, Figure 2 in each of the specifications of the basic applications is, as mentionedabove, only a magnified development view of the lower sliding part of the clamp rod, i.e.,a patent drawing showing a mode of arrangement of the four guide grooves 26, which is
not determined to be a drawing that is illustrated accurately enough to allow one tocomprehend dimension values and/or angle values with respect to each guide groove,
unlike a design drawing. Therefore, we believe that the specific slant angle of 20
degrees regarding the spiral groove 27 cannot be read from a patent drawing such asthe above.
Even if it is possible to read that the specific slant angle of the spiral groove 27 isapproximately 20 degrees from Figure 2 above, there is no reason to take theapproximate 20 degrees as a median since Figure 2 cannot be understood as a figure
indicating the slant angle of the spiral groove as the median. Further, it is not rational
to set the approximate 20 degrees as above as a median and then define the range of theslant angle of the spiral groove 27 by setting an upper and lower limit values by adding
10 degrees to or subtracting 10 degrees from the median of 20 degrees.
In summary, it should not be admitted that each specification of the basic applications
describes the range of the slant angles defined with the upper limit of 30 degrees andthe lower limit of 10 degrees, and therefore that the range definition is obvious to aperson of ordinary skill in the art .
<----- Stop
解答例その２Start ---->
Through comprehensive consideration of the above, it is obvious before us that the1features of the present patent invention 1 below are not described in the specifications,etc. of the first to the third basic applications which serve as bases of the priority claim,
with regard to the above second sliding part 12 that is supported with the second edge
wall 3b by being tightly fit thereto and having three or four guide grooves 26: the slant
angle A of the above spiral groove 27 is set to fall within the range between 10 and 30
degrees where the outer peripheral surface of the second sliding part 12 is developed;
and the minimum thickness T of the wall between adjacent guide grooves 26, 26 isdetermined to be smaller than the width W of the guide groove 26.
Therefore, regarding application of Articles 29 bis, 29 and 39 of the Patent Act to thepresent patent invention 1, since the benefit of claiming priority cannot be entertainedor the application of the patent invention 1 cannot be deemed to be filed at the time offiling of the prior applications, the reference date of October 2, 2002 is observed as anactual filing date of the application of the present patent 1.
(6) Here, as mentioned in 2-1(4) above, since the fact reveals that product A wasmanufactured and sold before the reference date of (5) above, the present patentinvention 1 should be determined as not being novel because it was publicly exploitedand manufactured and sold before filing of the application .
In other words, since the present patent 1 is determined to be invalidated through an
administrative appeal for invalidation of patent according to the provisions of Article
123 (1)(ii) and 29(1)(ii) of Patent Act, the plaintiff cannot enforce the patent right on thedefendant based on the present patent right 1. Therefore, we determine that thecomplaint of the plaintiff against the defendant based on the present patent right 1 has
no reason without determining the other issues.
<----- Stop2