18IPL004up.txt
受験番号：18IPL004============================================================================(yi)
The plaintiff argues that: according to Figure 2 of eachpriority-application specification, the inclination angle of the spiral groove
27 is “approximately 20 degrees”; and it is obvious for those ordinarily
skilled in the art to, in view of the disclosure of the drawings and thespecifications, increase or decrease such "approximately 20 degrees" by 10degrees so as to set the inclination angle within a range of 10 degrees to 30degrees.
However, as described above, Figure 2 of each priority-application
specification is merely an enlarged development view depicting the lower sliding
portion of the clamp rod, i.e., a patent drawing depicting how the four guidegrooves 26 are positioned. Therefore, Figure 2 is not identified with a design
drawing or another drawing in which each guide groove is depicted so preciselythat the dimensions and angles thereof are readable. Accordingly, it is notpossible to read from such patent drawing the specific angle (i.e., the“approximately 20 degrees”) of the “spiral groove 27.”
Even if it is readable from Figure 2 above that the inclination angle ofthe spiral groove 27 is specifically "approximately 20 degrees," there is nosuggestion in Figure 2 that the depicted inclination angle of the spiral groove
27 be a “median,” and thus there is no reason to appreciate the "approximately
20 degrees" as a “median.” Further, it is not reasonable, either, tounderstand that the "approximately 20 degrees" serving as a median is increased
or decreased by 10 degrees so as to set the upper and lower limits to theinclination angle of the spiral groove 27 and to define the range of theinclination angle.
In conclusion, the range of the inclination angle with the "30 degrees"
serving as the upper limit and the “10 degrees” serving as the lower limit isneither disclosed in nor obvious from any of the priority-application
specifications.
(5)
In sum, it is clear that none of the first to third priority-application
specifications and the like, the priority of which is claimed by the patent 1,
discloses the claimed limitation of the patent invention 1, which reads: "in thesecond sliding portion tightly fitted to and supported by the second end walland provided with the three or four guide grooves, an inclination angle of theturning groove while outer circumferential surfaces of the second sliding
portion are developed is set within 10 degrees to 30 degrees, and the minimum
thickness of partition walls of the adjoining guide grooves is set to be smaller
than a groove width of the guide grooves" (i.e., the configurations (1) and (2)above).
Therefore, in applying Articles 29bis, 29 and 39 of Patent Law to thepatent invention 1, the claimed priority should not be considered (i.e., theapplication for the patent invention 1 should not be deemed to have been filed
on the same date as the priority application), and thus the filing date on which
the application for the patent 1 is actually filed (i.e., October 2, 2002)
should serve as the reference date in the application of the above provisions.
(6)
As stated in Section 2, Paragraph 1 (4) above, since the manufacturing
and the distribution of the product A (i.e., the product obtained as the result
ページ(1)

18IPL004up.txt
of practicing the patent invention 1) were commenced prior to the reference dateas mentioned in the preceding Paragraph (5), the patent invention 1 is not novel
as being manufactured and distributed (i.e., publicly practiced) prior to thefiling.
In conclusion, the patent 1 should be invalidated through a patent
invalidation trial under Article 123, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 and Article
19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff may not enforce thepatent right based on the patent 1 against the defendant, and therefore theplaintiff’s claims are all moot, requiring no further examination.

ページ(2)