Trilateral Project 24.1-Biotechnology 098

With regard to the clarity of claim, see 1.1.1.1(1), 1.1.1.2.1(1).

Though a claim is clear and has no violation of the Patent Law Section 36(6)(ii), if "a person skilled in the art" who is supposed to have ordinary skill cannot understand how to carry out the invention on the basis of teachings in the specification (excluding claims) and drawings taking into consideration the common general knowledge as of the filing, such a detailed description of an invention should be deemed insufficient for enablement requirement. (for example, if a large amount of trials and errors or complicated experimentation are needed to find a way of carrying out the invention beyond the reasonable extent that can be expected from a person skilled in the art who is supposed to have ordinary skill, such a description should not be deemed sufficient.) (Implementing Guidelines I-1-3.2 (Note 2) )

Inventive step of the claimed invention which defines a product solely by a result to be achieved should be denied when the result to be achieved is a well-known technical problem and a certain product to be defined by the result is either known to or easy-to-invent to a person skilled in the art as of the filing, unless otherwise inventive step can be positively inferred by other facts, even if a specific means to solve the technical problem is not known as of the filing. (Implementing Guidelines I-2-2.4.3(8) )