CONTENTS
CONTACTS

HARAKENZO
WORLD PATENT & TRADEMARK


오사카본부

우편번호:530-0041
오사카시 기타구 텐진바시 2쵸메 기타
2반 6고 다이와 미나미모리마찌 빌딩
TEL: +81-6-6351-4384(대표)
FAX: +81-6-6351-5664(대표)
E-Mail:

도쿄본부

우편번호:105-6121
도쿄도 미나토구 하마마츠쵸 2쵸메 4반 1고
세계무역센터 빌딩 21 층
TEL: +81-3-3433-5810(대표)
FAX: +81-3-3433-5281(대표)
E-Mail:


히로시마사무소

우편번호:730-0032
히로시마현 히로시마시 나카구 다태마치 2-23 노무라부동산빌딩 4 층
TEL: +81-82-545-3680(대표)
FAX: +81-82-243-4130(대표)
E-Mail:


2018년3월1일에 개설
나고야 사무소

우편번호:453-6109
나고야시 나카무라구 히라이케쬬우 4쬬우메 60번지의 12 글로벌게이트 9층
TEL: +81-52-589-2581(대표)
FAX: +81-52-589-2582(대표)
E-Mail:


상기 트레이드마크의 배경지도는, 1991년 당시의 특허등록건수를 육지의 크기와 형상으로 의태화하여 지도형태로 나타낸 것입니다.

프라이버시 폴리시


Comparison of Patent System
EPO Support Station Chief Advisor: Yasutaka OKABE
EUIPO Support Station Chief Advisor: Akinori HACHIYA
TEL
FAX
E-mail
: + 81 - 6 - 6351 - 4384
: + 81 - 6 - 6351 - 5664
:

JP-EP-US Patent Practice Comparison


  JP EPC US
Unpatentable subject manners Matters in contravention to public order and morality ・Discovery, scientific theory, mathematic method, artistic work, mental action, computer program, information presentation, surgery or medical treatment

・Matters in contravention to public order and morality, variety of plants and animals
Not particularly defined in Patent Law
Definition of invention Advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing natural laws Industrially applicable mattersProducible and applicable matters in industrial fields including agricultural industry New and useful machinery, product, process, compound, and improvements thereof
Novelty ・Not disclosed in prior art

・Not published, not publicly known or used anywhere in the world

・Exceptions to lack of novelty would be applicable in 6 months subjected to conditions
・Not comprising a part of state of the art

・Not published, not publicly known or used anywhere in the world

・Exceptions to lack of novelty would be applicable in 6 months subjected to conditions
・Not disclosed in prior art before the date of invention

・Not published anywhere in the world, Not publicly known or used in U.S.A.

・Grace period is 1 year
Inventive steps(Non-obviousness) A patent is granted to an invention that could not have been easily accomplished by a person skilled in the art. A patent is granted to an industrially applicable invention being novel and inventive. A patent is granted to such an invention that a difference between a subject matter of the invention and prior art is not obvious as a whole to a person skilled in the art at time of invention
Examination guideline ・Whether or not it can be demonstrated that an invention could have been easily accomplished by a person skilled in the art in reference to state of the art. When it is demonstrated so, inventive step is denied.

・Whether or not inventive step can be denied based on general technical knowledge and comparison between claimed invention and cited invention to determined identical and different points

・ Whether or not it is a mere change of design, or an aggregation of known techniques. Whether or not there is a motivation in cited invention

・Advantageous effect described in Description can be a material for affirmation of inventive steps
・ Whether or not it goes beyond the normal progress of technology.

・Whether or not an invention is obvious as a whole when construed as a whole

・ Whether or not it is a mere aggregation of known techniques

・Problem-solution approach

(1) Identification of the closest prior art
(2) Establish an objective technical problem
(3) Would-Could approach
(4) Combination of prior arts
・Determined based on PrecedentsSupreme court decision on Graham Case

・ Determine scope and content of prior art

・ Consider secondary matters

・ Determine difference between prior art and claimed invention

・ Determine state of the art of skilled persons Supreme court decision on KSR Case

・ TSM test is not the only criterion for obviousness analysis

・ Test for obviousness analysis should be more nonrestrictive and flexible

・ A number of different tests can be applied for obviousness analysis

・ To raise obviousness rejection based on combination of prior arts, an examiner has to provide a clear basis

・ Cited reference does not necessarily have the same problem to be solved as one the patent works on

・ “Obvious to try” is applicable to the test for obviousness analysis

・ Mutually relating teachings in cited references, effects known and desired by a person skilled in the art, and background knowledge of a person skilled in the art may be a material for obviousness rejection

・ Whether or not it has an unexpected effect

・ Whether or not problems solved by claimed invention has been previously known
페이지 위