Case 2007 (Gyo-ke) No. 10074

(applicability of the independent patentability requirement to claims other than the claims for which a limitative restrictive amendment has been filed)

【SUMMARY OF THE CASE】
In the amendment related to the present case, claims to which a limitative restrictive amendment pertained were only claims 1 and 2, while said amendment did not pertain to claim 4. As a consequence, the independent patentability requirement is to be assessed for the amended invention 1 or the amended invention 2, and the ruling that the amended invention 4 does not have independent patentability was based on a mistaken assessment of the independent patentability requirement and was therefore illegal.

【DATE OF THE RULING】March 26, 2008
【COURT】Intellectual Property High Court
【RULING NUMBER】2007 (Gyo-ke) No. 10074
【REDACTOR OF THE ABSTRACT】Shinji IMANO, Patent & Trademark Attorney
【ADDRESS OF THE FULL TEXT】
http://www.courts.go.jp/search/jhsp0010?action_id=first&hanreiSrchKbn=01

【判示事項】
本件補正においては，限定的減縮に相当する補正がされた請求項は，請求項１及び２のみであり，請求項４は補正の対象になっていない。したがって，独立特許要件は，補正発明１又は２について判断すべきであり，補正発明４について独立特許要件がないと判断した審決には，独立特許要件の判断を誤った違法がある。

【判決日】平成20年03月26日
【裁判所】知的財産高等裁判所
【事件番号】平成19(行ケ)10074
【判決要約担当者】弁理士　今野　信二
【判決全文URL】
http://www.courts.go.jp/search/jhsp0010?action_id=first&hanreiSrchKbn=01