★★★ ＜第35回知的財産翻訳検定試験【第17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。

問１．以下に示す英文は、アメリカ合衆国・連邦巡回控訴裁判所の判決文からそのまま抜粋したものです。事案は、米国特許商標庁（USPTO）の Patent Trialand Appeal Board（PTAB）の決定に対する不服申立事件に関します。注意書
きに従って、この英文を日本語に翻訳してください。
＜翻訳に際しての注記＞（１）翻訳対象箇所は 2 箇所で、それぞれ下線を付すとともに、*** START ***,*** END ***で始終点を示してあります。
（２）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、文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。
（３）文中に引用されている他の判決等の文献の記載（In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985)等）は、訳出せずに英語のまま日本語翻訳文中に残してかまいません。
以下問題文→DISCUSSION
Product-by-Process*** START *** Kamstrup argues that the Board erred inconstruing“cast in one piece” as a product-by-process claim element. A
product-by-process claim is one in which a product is claimed, at least in part,by the “process by which it is made.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
Product-by-process claims “enable an applicant to claim an otherwise

patentable product that resists definition by other than the process by which
it is made.” Id. “In determining validity of a product-by-process claim, thefocus is on the product and not the process of making it. That is because of
the . . . long-standing rule that an old product is not patentable even if it ismade by a new process.” Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1268 (citations omitted).
*** END ***“As we recognized in Amgen, if the process by which a product ismade imparts ‘structural and functional differences’ distinguishing theclaimed product from the prior art, then those differences ‘are relevant asevidence of no anticipation’ although they ‘are not explicitly part of theclaim.’” Id. (quoting Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, 580 F.3d 1340,1365–67 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The specification, the prosecution history, and anyextrinsic evidence may enlighten whether structural and functionaldifferences exist. Amgen, 580 F.3d at 1365–67; Purdue Pharma L.P. v. EpicPharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
For example, in Amgen, we determined that a district court correctly
granted

JMOL

thatapriorartreference

didnotanticipateaproduct-by-process claim. 580 F.3d at 1365–67. The claim was directed to achemical compound “purified from mammalian cells grown in culture.” Id.
The prior art, however, was a similar chemical compound but purified fromurine. Id.
We held that the district court correctly found no anticipation
because the evidence showed that the chemical compound “purified frommammalian cells grown in culture” had different structural and functional
differences from the prior art. Id. at 1367. The district court correctly
considered that “the specification and prosecution history of the [] patent . . .
refer to studies indicating that [the claimed chemical compound] had ahigher molecular weight and different charge than [the prior art] due todifferences in carbohydrate composition.” Id. The district court also properly
considered an expert declaration in the prosecution history and trial expert
testimony that similarly evidenced the structural and functional differences
between the claimed product and prior art. Id.; see also Purdue Pharma, 811
F.3d at 1353–54 (finding that the district court did not err in disregarding a

product-by-process limitation for an obviousness determination where thespecification and the patentee’s expert testimony evidenced that the process“imparts no structural or functional differences in the [claimed product] ascompared to the prior art products”); Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1271 (“[Thepatentee’s] arguments clearly and unmistakably represented to theexaminer and the Board that [the process] . . . imparted the distinctstructural characteristics upon [the patentee’s] claimed [product].”).
*** START ***theBoard

correctly

Turning to this case, the first question is whether
determinedthat“castinonepiece”

isa

product-by-process claim element. Here, the claim language confirms that itis. See Amgen, 580 F.3d at 1367 (“[B]y its plain terms, claim 1 of the [] patentclaims a product with a [process] limitation.”). The claim describes “amonolithic polymer structure being cast in one piece.” ’957 patent at 6:40–42.
On its face, the claim element claims a process because it describes thestructure “being” cast in a particular way. See Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at1264–65 (product-by-process claim elements recited a product “being formed”a certain way).
Kamstrup argues that “[t]he mere mention of a process in a claim
limitation does not automatically convert that limitation into a processlimitation.” Appellant’s Br. 31. While that may be true, Kamstrup does not
explain why we should disregard the fact that the claims recite a process
here. Nor does Kamstrup point to disclosure in the specification that
describes structure for the term. Instead, Kamstrup relies on disclosure
discussing the fabrication process for the device—further support that this is
a product- by-process claim element. Id. at 21–23 (quoting ’957 patent at 2:6–15) (emphasis added) (The “flow meter . . . can be fabricated with a reduced
number of steps compared to existing meters, since only a single step is used
to form the monolithic polymer structure . . . . [A] flow meter housing which
has a straight flow section separated from a cavity in a manner where a partof the wall of the flow section is part of the inside of the cavity [] can . . . becast in a single step . . . .”). We therefore conclude that the Board did not err
in finding that “cast in one piece” is a product-by-process claim element.
*** END ***The second question is whether the product-by-process claim element
imparts patentable weight to the claims. Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1268.
We conclude that it does not.
Kamstrup argues that the Board erred in finding that there are nofunctional or structural differences between polymer structures cast in asingle mold versus multiple molds. Appellant’s Br. 32–34. Kamstrup statesthat “various structures . . . cannot be cast in a single mold using
conventional die cast injection molding technologies.” Id. at 34 (emphasisadded); Reply 24–26.
First, even if true, Kamstrup has not identified functional andstructural differences between a structure “cast in one piece” and a structure
manufactured using another method. Rather, the argument is merely thatthe claim element describes a manufacturing method with some inherent
restrictions. Further, Kamstrup has not identified disclosure in thespecification or prosecution history or extrinsic evidence evidencing
structural and functional differences.
Second, the alleged structural and functional difference that
Kamstrup identifies is detached from the claims. The claims state that thestructure should be “cast in one piece,” not cast in one mold. ’957 patent at
6:40–42 (emphasis added). The Board correctly found that the written
description “focuses on reducing the number of steps required to fabricate
the flow meter housing, not on casting in a single mold.” Axioma, 2021 WL
1235790, at *7 (citing ’957 patent at 1:55–57, 2:6–9). While certain figures of
the written description, namely Figures 5A and 5B, depict a single mold, theBoard correctly found that those embodiments are narrower than theclaims—which do not require use of a single mold—and correctly declined toimport narrower limitations from the specification to the claims. Id.
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding that the extrinsic
evidence does not exclusively show that “cast in one piece” means “cast inone mold.” Id. at *8.
Consequently, we hold that because Kamstrup fails to show that theprocess

claimedimparts“structuralandfunctionaldifferences”

distinguished from the prior art, it is not entitled patentable weight.

Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1268.
【翻訳不要／参考】該当ＵＳ特許のクレーム１
1.

An ultrasonic flow meter housing comprising:a monolithic polymer structure being cast in one piece, the monolithic

structure includes a flow tube and a cavity separated from the flow tube,
wherein the flow tube defines a through-going straight flow section arranged
for passage of a fluid between an inlet and an outlet, wherein a part of a wallof the flow section is part of an inside surface of the cavity, so that the flow
section and the cavity has a shared wall area; and wherein the cavity isarranged for housing
at least one ultrasonic transducer, at the shared wall area; anda measurement circuit operationally connected to the at least one
ultrasonic transducer so as to allow measurement of a flow rate of the fluid.

問２．以下は NFT 出展サービスを手掛ける事業者が掲げている利用規約（架空）の抜粋です。翻訳対象箇所を日本語に翻訳してください。
＜翻訳に際しての注記＞（１）翻訳対象箇所は１箇所で、*** START ***, *** END ***で始終点を示してあります。
（２）翻訳に際して、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（定義語でない語と紛らわしくないように）訳語を工夫してください。
（３）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、文書として自然な翻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。

*** START ***Exhibition of Work1.

In connection with the provision of the NFT Services by Platformer,

User hereby grants Platformer the following rights under the copyright andall other applicable intellectual property rights on a non-exclusive basis:(1)

the right to upload the Work in a digitally-distributablemanner and to exhibit the Work to the public via electric communication;(2)

the right to exhibit the Work for the NFT Purchase on thePlatform and to make available the Work for download to a user who hasentered into a Smart Contract with User;(3)

the right to use the Work for the advertisement, marketingand promotion of the Platform;(4)

the right to develop any commercial message or otherpromotional material about the Work and to use such commercial message
and other promotional material for the advertisement, marketing andpromotion of the Work on and off the Platform; and(5)the right to modify the size, aspect ratio or other format of

the Work or make other modification or changes to the Work to the extent
not to impair the essential characteristics of the Work, for the convenience ofthe exhibition of the Work on the Platform.
2.

User hereby acknowledges and agrees that the exhibition of theWork on the Platform requires User to Mint the Work with use of theAuthorized Third-Party Services at User’s expense and liability, and in noevent shall Platformer be responsible or liable for Minting of the Work.
3.

It is hereby acknowledged and agreed that none of the technologies

pertaining to the block chain, non-fungible token and/or smart contract as
employed for the Platform, the NFT Services and/or Authorized Third-Party
Services is configured to prevent or otherwise restrict any unauthorized
reproduction or use of the Work, and that Platformer shall have noresponsibility or liability for any unauthorized reproduction or use of theWork on or off the Platform.
*** END ***