The detailed description of the present invention … states to the effect that since a shift of the order of the absorber with the same configuration occurs under oil to lower order values, the order shift to a higher order value which order shift corresponds to the shift of the absorption order considers the effect which comes from the oil influence which counteracts the centrifugal force. Within the scope of the foregoing statement in the detailed description, a person skilled in the art could recognize that a problem to be solved by the invention … can be solved.
However, the scope of the claims does not have any description specifying a specific setting method of the degree offset q F and should be considered to include a case of the degree offset to a higher degree value by an arbitrarily set degree offset q F. Moreover, if the degree offset q F set arbitrarily as above is employed, it cannot be considered that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can recognize that the problems of the present invention can be solved from the description of the present description.
The foregoing criteria for determination of the support requirement was established in previous court cases (IP High Court [Grand Panel] case No. 2005 (Gyo-ke) 10042: a “polarizing film manufactured method” case, and IP High Court case No. 10147: “pioglitazone” case, etc.).
Accordingly, before judging the compliance with the support requirement, how an “object of an invention” is understood becomes an issue.
Whether an “object” of an invention is identified concretely or abstractly affects the determination of the support requirement and an inventive step. More specifically, if an “object” of an invention is understood concretely (at a high level), an inventive step of the invention is readily to be acknowledged; however, it is likely that the object of the invention which is understood concretely (at a high level) is found not to be supported by the statements in the claims. On the other hand, if an “object” of an invention is understood abstractly (at a low level), it is likely that the support requirement is readily found to be satisfied; however, it is likely that an inventive step is denied on the ground of the similarity of the technical field or the similarity of problems to be solved.
As it is understood from the foregoing, the description of problem to be solved in the patent specification at the time of filing and assertion of the problem after the filing is very important.
Writer: Hideki TAKAISHI
Supervising editor: Kazuhiko YOSHIDA
Contact information for inquiries: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hideki TAKAISHI (The person in charge of this Article)
Attorney at Law & Patent Attorney
Nakamura & Partners
Room No. 616, Shin-Tokyo Building,
3-3-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8355, JAPAN