第１０回知的財産翻訳検定試験＜第６回和文英訳＞１級／知財法務実務【標準解答】

Mailing Date: 5 July 2008
Notice of Rejection
Patent Application No.:
Drafting Date:
Applicable Law:
29(2), and 36

2003-123456
3 July 2008
Articles 29mainparagraph,

This application is rejected for the reasons below. Anyamendments and/or arguments must be submitted in writing within
60 days of the mailing date of this rejection.
1. Claims 1-6 are rejected as unpatentable for failure
to constitute creations involving technical concepts thatutilize a law of nature pursuant to Art. 29 main paragraph.
(1) Although the functions of the apparatus of claims 1-3
are described, for example, as “means for making distributable”,
the functions to be achieved are expressed simply as “means”
and are not configured as specific means in which software andhardware resources work together.
(2) The method of claim 4, although described as a computer
system operating method, simply describes the functions to beachieved and does not constitute a particular computer system
operating method.
The program of claim 5 and the medium of claim 6 do notconstitute creations involving technical concepts that utilizea law of nature.
2. Claims 1-6 are rejected as indefinite pursuant to Art.
36(2)(ii).
(1) Claims 1-3 are indefinite because, even though theydescribe a “system” and are thus inventions within the categoryof “things”, they are described functionally; what specificthings have these individual functions cannot be easily
ascertained.
(2) The method of claim 4, the program of claim 5, andthe medium of claim 6 are indefinite.
(3) Even referring to the specification, it is not clear
what sort of thing or method is claimed, or how configured.
3. The written description is inadequate pursuant to Art.
36(4)(i)Overall, the definitions and configurations are unclear.
Although a system having various functions isschematically described, there is no description of how thesoftware and the hardware are configured to implement thosefunctions.
Accordingly, the detailed description of the inventionof the present application is not fully and clearly describedso as to enable one skilled in the art to practice the inventionof claims 1-6.
4. Claims 1-6 are obvious over the cited references
pursuant to Art. 29(2).
Cited reference 1 describes a system for distributing
content, in which the operator and the content provider checkthe content and, in the event that publication of the content
is allowed, the system allows the content to be published. Thesystem has means for the operator to instruct whether or not
to publish, and transmits an e-mail containing a URL for thecontent to the content provider so that the content provider
can check the content according to the URL in the e-mail thustransmitted, and allows revisions by the content provider.
Cited reference 2 describes a system in which, ofdocuments input by a documents creator, those that areauthorized by an authorizing agent can be made available forviewing.
Cited reference 3 describes a workflow system in which,when an authorized person does not authorize the details of aprocess, the authorized person has the authority to makecorrections and to continue processing according to the processthus corrected.
Accordingly, applying the above-described known art tothe system of cited reference 1 renders the present invention
obvious.
List of cited references:(1) JP-2002-XXXXXX-A(2) JP-2001-YYYYYY-A(3) JP-2002-ZZZZZZ-ARecord of Prior Art Document Search Results:
Searched Fields(s): IPC G06Q10/100-50/00
Prior Art Document: JP-2002-AAAAAA-A
This record of prior art document search results does notconstitute a part of the rejection.