【PATENT ★】IP High Court Case No. 2017 (Gyo-Ke) 10006, 10015; August 22, 2017
“Run-flat tire” Case: A case in which (i) numerical limitations on temperature was not found to be in breach of the clarity requirement even if difference of 1℃ is caused depending on how it is measured, and (ii) an invention of a particular type of tire was found to have an inventive step by placing importance on the invention which focuses on a specific temperature range.
< Clarity Requirement >
⋯ a temperature 170℃ specified as a temperature at the intersection of extrapolation line A and extrapolation line B is derived by focusing on a change in dynamic storage modulus of a rubber composition for reinforcement during a temperature change between 180℃ and 200℃, and a difference occurred in such an intersection temperature, depending on how extrapolation lines are drawn, is only 1℃. Therefore, the recitations of claims which specify the structure of a rubber composition with a temperature at the intersection of extrapolation line A and extrapolation line B cannot be found to be as unclear as unduly harming a third party’s interests.
< Inventive Step >
⋯ Difference 1 is that Invention 6 specifies a numerical value range of the elasticity (rigidity) of the rubber composition for the rubber reinforcing layer of the tire side wall portions, stating that the rubber composition has ⋯ “a difference ΔE’ between the maximum value and the minimum value of the dynamic storage modulus at a temperature between 180 and 200℃ of 2.3 MPa or less.”
Therefore, we consider whether or not those skilled in the art could easily conceive the idea of focusing on the difference in the dynamic storage modulus of the rubber composition for the rubber reinforcing layer of the tire side wall portions at a temperature between 180 and 200℃. ⋯
It is understood from the foregoing that, at the time of filing the initial application for the present patent, those skilled in the art focused only on a range of a temperature of 150℃ or below with respect to dynamic storage modulus of the rubber composition for the rubber reinforcing layer of the tire side wall portions, it cannot be said that those skilled in the art focused on a temperature between 180 and 200℃. Therefore, it cannot be said that, at the time of filing the initial application for the present patent, those skilled in the art could have easily conceived the idea of focusing on the difference in the dynamic storage modulus of the rubber composition for the rubber reinforcing layer of the tire side wall portions at a temperature between 180 and 200℃. ⋯
The rubber composition for the rubber reinforcing layer of the run-flat tire side wall portions is expected to retain the rigidity at the high temperatures, however, characteristics of the said rubber composition is varied depending on a range of temperatures to be set in the run-flat condition. As stated above, at the time of filing the initial application for the present patent, those skilled in the art focused on only a range of a temperature of 150℃ or below with respect to dynamic storage modulus of the rubber composition for the rubber reinforcing layer of the tire side wall portion. Therefore, it should be said that those skilled in the art would not consider studying the characteristics of the said rubber composition on the premise of a temperature beyond such a temperature range. ⋯
The plaintiff asserted that according to reproductive experiments ⋯ rubber compositions of each example described in the cited reference 1 meet the numerical value range of Invention 6. However, because rubber compositions of each example described in the cited reference 1 meet the numerical value range of the Invention 6, it does not follow that, at the time of filing the initial application for the present patent, those skilled in the art focused on the difference in the dynamic storage modulus of the rubber composition for the rubber reinforcing layer of the tire side wall portions at a temperature between 180 and 200℃.
Writer: Hideki TAKAISHI
Supervising editor: Kazuhiko YOSHIDA
Contact information for inquiries: h_takaishi@nakapat.gr.jp
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
※本稿の内容は，一般的な情報を提供するものであり，法律上の助言を含みません。
執筆：弁護士・弁理士 高石秀樹（第二東京弁護士会）
本件に関するお問い合わせ先：h_takaishi☆nakapat.gr.jp（☆を＠に読み換えてください。）