★★★ ２００８年度第７回知的財産翻訳検定＜英文和訳＞ ★★★
≪１級 -知財法務実務-≫【解答にあたっての注意】
１．＜スタート＞ から＜エンド＞ までを英訳してください。
２．問題は３題あります。それぞれの問題の指示に従い、３題すべて解答してください。
３．解答語数に特に制限はありません。
４．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。
５．課題に図面が添付されている場合、該当する図面を参照してください。
★「課題図表の表示／非表示」リンクで表示

問１

次の英文を読みその内容を日本語１５０字以内で要約しなさい。下線を施したタイトルの訳は不要です。

Amendment After Official Action
In replying to the first Official Action on the merits of anapplication, the applicant has nearly complete freedom to amend thedisclosure and claims within the permissible boundaries determined by thesupporting disclosure present in the originally filed application.
Any number of claims may be added after the first action if the proper
fee is paid and the claims do not become unduly multiplied. The added claims
may be broader or narrower that initially filed and directed to embodiments
or features (or both) of the invention that were or were not claimed earlier
in the application.

Claims in different statutory categories, i.e.,

machine, article, process and composition, may also be added to theapplication.
Theapplicantmaythenrequest

reconsiderationand

further

examination of any new claims or amended claims in the application; he may
also request reconsideration of any claims that had not been amended.
The applicant must explain the basis he urges for patentability of
all of the amended claims and additionally presented claims included in
his reply to the first Official Action.
It is highly desirable for the practitioner to introduce as soon
as possible a full spectrum of claims from the broadest obtainable in viewof the prior art to the narrowest reasonably useful, and this should bedone at the latest when replying to the first Official Action.
Either the application is allowed, or a second Official Action isforwarded to the applicant after further examination and reconsiderationby the examiner.
Under current PTO practice, however, non-final second Official
Action on the merits of an application is not usual. They normally occur
only in situations where significantly better prior art is found by theexaminer after the first office action or where the examiner mustsignificantly shift his basis for rejection. The applicant has the same
freedom in reply to a non-final second Office Action as with replying to
the first Office Action.

問２

以下に示す米国特許法の規定に関する英文を、適切な日本語に翻訳してください。

翻訳の対象は、*** Start *** と*** End *** で挟まれた部分とします。

Section 101 of the patent Statute, 35 USC §101, reads as follows:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions andrequirements of this title. (Emphasis added)**** START ***The emphasized language has been interpreted as limiting an inventor
to only one patent per invention. A double patenting rejection arises
where an inventor files more than one application claiming the sameinvention. In addition to examining the application and the invention
disclosed therein for patentability under Sections 102, 103 and 112 of
the statute, the examiner will compare related applications of which
he is aware to determine whether more than one application has claims
directed to the same invention. If so, and that invention is otherwise
patentable, the examiner will allow those claims in only one suchapplication.

Any claims in other applications that are directed to the same invention
will be rejected on the grounds of double patenting over the claims ofthat allowed application when it issues as a patent.

Copendingapplications and patents are "related" if they are (1) filed by the same

inventive entity, (2) are assigned to the same assignee, or (3) haveat least one common inventor. It should be borne in mind that application
claims may not be rejected over a previously-issued patent of the same
inventive entity under Section 102(e), because the patent is not thanof "another". Only a double patenting rejection prevents the issuanceof a second patent on the same invention to the same inventive entity
under those circumstances.

It is easy to see why the practice of double patenting should be prohibited.
The patent system is designed to reward the inventor for making anddisclosing his invention with a grant of a limited time during which
the patentee can exclude others from making, using, offering to sellor selling the invention.

If the inventor were allowed to obtain atemporally extending series of patents covering the same invention, hecould in effect extend the exclusionary term of his patent coverage forthat single invention beyond the term intended by Congress.

*** End ***