Major Differences Between Prosecution at EPO and JPO

Transcription

1 Major Differences Between Prosecution at P and JP Kiyoshi FUKUI Patent & Trademark Attorney Chief Deputy Director General HARAKZ WRLD PATT & TRADMARK 1 P JP 2

2 Major Differences Between Prosecution at P and JP I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep II. III. Limitations on mendment Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions 3 P JP I. II. III. 4

3 Major Differences Between Prosecution at P and JP I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep 5 P JP I. 6

4 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep Principle Whether or not a claimed invention involves an inventive step is determined whether the reasoning can be made. The reasoning is that a person skilled in the art could have easily arrived at a claimed invention based on cited inventions by always taking into account that what the person skilled in the art would do, after precisely comprehending the state of the art in the field to which the present invention pertains at the time of the filing. 7 I. 8

5 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep elect one cited invention most suitable for the reasoning Clarify the identicalness and the difference between the claimed invention and the selected invention hould not be denied Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Design change etc.? Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 9 I. 10

6 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep elect one cited invention most suitable for the reasoning Clarify the identicalness and the difference between the claimed invention and the selected invention hould not be denied Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Design change etc.? Determine CPA (Closest Prior Art) similar to P Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 11 I. P (CPA) 12

7 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep elect one cited invention most suitable for the reasoning Clarify the identicalness and the difference between the claimed invention and the selected invention hould not be denied Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Design change etc.? Determine neither the effects nor Remarkable advantageous effect? define the problem at this stage hould be denied 13 I. 14

8 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep hould not be denied Attempt reasoning that causes the claimed invention to lack an inventive step The reasoning Clarify the can identicalness be made and from the various difference and between extensive the aspects. claimed invention and the selected invention Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? elect one cited invention most suitable for the reasoning Design change etc.? Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 15 I. 16

9 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep hould not be denied elect one cited invention! Relevance most suitable of technical for the fields reasoning! imilarity in a problem to be solved! imilarity Clarify the in identicalness function, work and the or difference operation between the claimed invention and the selected invention! uggestions in the cited references Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Design change etc.? Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 17 I.!!!! 18

10 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep elect one cited invention most suitable for the reasoning! election of an optimal material! Workshop Clarify the identicalness modification and of the design difference between! Mere the claimed aggregation invention of features and the selected invention hould not be denied Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Design change etc.? Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 19 I.!!! 20

11 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep hould not be denied If there is such elect a description one cited invention a cited reference that precludes most the suitable reasoning for the that reasoning the claimed invention is easily arrived at. Clarify the identicalness and the difference between the claimed invention and the selected invention The cited reference is not eligible for a cited invention. Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Design change etc.? Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 21 I. 22

12 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep hould not be denied When the advantageous elect one cited effect invention is so remarkable that it cannot most be suitable foreseen the by a reasoning person skilled in the art from the state of art, as compared with the cited invention, Clarify the identicalness there may be and cases the difference where its between inventive the step claimed is not invention denied. and the selected invention An Is the advantageous claimed feature effect corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? An effect which is advantageous in comparison with an effect of a cited invention, among other Probable effects cause derived or motivation from the? features Design defining change a etc.? claimed invention. Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 23 I. 24

13 I. Practice for Determining whether a Claimed Invention Involves an Inventive tep elect one cited invention most suitable for the reasoning Clarify the identicalness and the difference between the claimed invention and the selected invention hould not be denied Is the claimed feature corresponding to the difference disclosed in other cited references? Probable cause or motivation? Any inhibiting factors such as teaching away? Design change etc.? Remarkable advantageous effect? hould be denied 25 I. 26

14 Major Differences Between Prosecution at P and JP II. Limitations on mendment 27 P JP II. 28

15 II. Limitations on mendment a) Amendment containing new matter ~ Prohibited [PC123(2)] b) Amendment of claims relating to unsearched subject-matter ~ Prohibited [Rule 137(5)] a) An amendment containing new matter ~ Prohibited [JPA17-2(3)] b) An amendment of claims after notice of reasons for refusal ~ Restricted [JPA17-2(4)] c) Amendment of claims after final notice of reasons for refusal ~ Further Restricted [JPA17-2(5)] 29 II. a) ~ [ 123 (2)] b) ~ [ 137 (5)] a) ~ [ 17 2(3)] b) ~ [ 17 2(4)] c) ~ [ 17 2(5)] 30

16 II. Limitations on mendment An amendment of claims after notice of reasons for refusal All of the amended claims hall meet requirements for unity of invention as a whole The pending claims for which determinations are made as to whether they are not patentable in the notice of reasons for refusal issued prior to such amendments 31 II. 32

17 II. Limitations on mendment An amendment of claims after notice of reasons for refusal (Cont.) (Claims before the amendment) (Claims after the amendment) Inventions in the same category that include all matters specifying the invention claimed in claim 3 before the amendment Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claims in shaded boxes include all matters specifying the invention claimed in claim 3 with a special technical feature. 33 II. ( ) 34

18 II. Limitations on mendment An amendment of claims after notice of reasons for refusal (Cont.) (Claims before the amendment) (Claims after the amendment) Inventions in the same category that include all matters specifying the invention claimed in claim (i) after the amendment Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim Claim Claim Claim Claims in shaded boxes include all matters specifying the invention claimed in claim with a special technical feature. 35 II. ( ) 36

19 II. Limitations on mendment An amendment of claims after final notice of reasons for refusal the Amendment to pending claims shall be limited to those for the following purposes: " Cancellation of claim(s); " Clarification of ambiguous description; " Correction of errors in description; or " Restrictive limitation on claim(s). # hall be limitation on claim(s); # hall be limitation on features specifying the pending claim(s); and # The industrial applicability and problems to be solved by the amended claims shall be the same as the pending claims. 37 II. the " ; " ; " ; or ". # ; # ; and #. 38

20 II. Limitations on mendment An amendment of claims after final notice of reasons for refusal (Cont.) the Limitation on features specifying the pending claim [Pending Claim] A production method of compounds C comprising reacting compound A to compound B. Does not fall under Limitation on features specifying the pending claim [Amended claim] A production method of compounds C comprising reacting compound A to compound B at the temperature above II. ( ) the [ ] [ ] 80 40

21 Major Differences Between Prosecution at P and JP III. Treatment of Computer oftware- Related Inventions 41 P JP III. 42

22 III. Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions Patentable inventions [PC Article 52] (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a uropean patent application or uropean patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such. [Patent Act Article 2] (1) "Invention" in this Act means the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the laws of nature. (3) "Working" of an invention in this Act means the following acts: (i) in the case of an invention of a product (including a computer program, etc., the same shall apply hereinafter), producing, using, assigning, etc. 43 III. [ 52 ] (2) (1) (c) (3) (2) [ 2 ] (1) (3) (i) 44

23 III. Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions Patentable Inventions (Cont.) Guidelines [Part C - Chapter IV 2.3.6] While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3). [Part VII Chapter 1] The basic concept to determine whether software-related invention constitutes a creation of technical ideas utilizing a law of nature is as follows. Where information processing by software is concretely realized by using hardware resources, the said software is deemed to be "a creation of technical ideas utilizing a law of nature. 45 III. ( ) [C IV 2.3.6] 52 (2),, 52 (2) (3) [ VII 1 ] 46

24 III. Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions Patentable Inventions (Cont.) Guidelines [Part VII Chapter 1] information processing by software is concretely realized by using hardware resources, means that, as a result of reading the software into the computer, the information processing equipment (machine) or operational method thereof particularly suitable for a use purpose is constructed by concrete means in which software and hardware resources are cooperatively working so as to realize arithmetic operation or manipulation of information depending on the said use purpose. 47 III. ( ) [ VII 1 ] 48

25 III. Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions Patentable Inventions (Cont.) xamples [Claim 1] A card game program executed in a computer which includes a storage device, the storage device storing (i) a scoring hand data table in which specific scoring hand data correspond to a combination of a plurality of cards and (ii) a score data table in which score data correspond to the specific scoring hand data, said card game program executing the steps of: finding (i) a type of an extracted scoring hand which corresponds to a combination of a selected plurality of cards and (ii) a total score which is set in accordance with the type of the extracted scoring hand; and outputting a display of the type of the extracted scoring hand and the total score thus found. The invention of claim 1 does not constitute a "statutory invention." extract output scoring hand data score data 49 III. ( ) [Claim 1] 50

26 III. Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions Patentable Inventions (Cont.) xamples [Claim 2] A card game program executed in a computer which includes a storage device, the storage device storing (i) a scoring hand data table in which specific scoring hand data correspond to a combination of a plurality of cards and (ii) a score data table in which score data correspond to the specific scoring hand data, said card game program executing the steps of: extracting, from the scoring hand data table, scoring hand data which correspond to a combination of a selected plurality of cards; finding a total score of the score data corresponding to the scoring hand data thus extracted; and outputting a display of all of the scoring hand data thus extracted and the total score thus found. The invention of claim 2 constitutes a "statutory invention." extract calculate score output scoring hand data score data 51 III. ( ) [Claim 2] 52

27 Decisions/Guidelines III. Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions Inventive tep [T 641/00] An invention consisting of a mixture of technical and non-technical features and having technical character as a whole is to be assessed with respect to the requirement of inventive step by taking account of all those features which contribute to said technical character whereas features making no such contribution cannot support the presence of inventive step. [Part VII Chapter 1] ince the invention should be viewed as a whole, it is inappropriate to identify the claimed invention by separating the aspect of artificial arrangement and that of automation technique. 53 III. [T 641/00] [ VII 1 ] 54

28 III. Treatment of Computer oftware-related Inventions Inventive tep (Cont.) Guidelines [Part VII Chapter 1] An invention being within the exercise of an ordinary creative activity of a person skilled in the art. The inventive step is not affirmatively inferred unless there exist special circumstances. <xamples> # Application to other fields # Addition of a commonly known means or replacement by equivalent # Implementation by software of functions which are otherwise performed by hardware # ystematization of human transactions # Reproduction of a known event in computerized virtual space # Design modification on the basis of known facts or customs 55 III. ( ) [ VII 1 ] < > # # # # # # 56

29 Thank you for your attention. HARAKZ WRLD PATT & TRADMARK 57 HARAKZ WRLD PATT & TRADMARK 58