Text size
S
M
L

Main content starts here.

Decisions

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) provides professional English translations of trial/appeal decisions, decisions on oppositions, and Hantei (advisory opinions on the scope of industrial property rights) categorized by type, field, or other attributes of a case that help in the understanding of the law and its operation, for the purpose of improving and enhancing the international reach and quality of information provided on industrial property rights applicable in Japan.

List

Table of Contents

Last updated documents (February 2020)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2016-014940 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step Even if these different features from Cited Invention are considered generally, the working effect of the Invention in which an operation switch of a warm water washing toilet seat is disposed at a toilet seat front tip end falls within a scope that can be predicted from the techniques described in Cited Document and the like.
Appeal 2016-015132 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step, Amendment The case in which the appeal decision denied inventive step of crystal polymorphs in the field of organic compounds judging that the effects of the patented invention are not especially significant based on the finding that, although there are certain differences such as existence/non-existence of X-ray diffraction pattern, the Cited Invention has motivation for obtaining crystals, and the techniques of crystallization are normally adopted ones.
Appeal 2016-016715 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case where a suit against the appeal decision found no error in the findings in the appeal decision for the invention disclosed in the publication and also found no error in findings in the appeal decision for the different features between the Invention and the invention disclosed in the publication.
Appeal 2017-006211 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, with respect to the invention of laminated glass, the body has determined by taking into account the commonality of problem that a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of replacing a PVB interlayer film used in the primary cited invention with an interlayer film of the secondary cited invention comprising a lower hygroscopicity.
Appeal 2017-013374 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, with respect to the invention relating to a method for the treatment of hair in which steam is used, the body has determined that it is easy to decide an amount of steam to avoid damage on hair in the Cited Invention in view of the fact that it is a well-known matter that hair is damaged during use of a curling iron regardless of whether hair is rich or poor in moisture.
Appeal 2017-018019 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Patent Eligibility, Inventive Step A case in which it was judged that the Invention concerning a geometric accounting processing method is a creation targeting an artificial decision or a human mental activity itself, and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a creation of technical idea using a law of nature even as viewed from the viewpoint of an invention related to computer software.
Appeal 2018-004573 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims A case in which the body has determined that it cannot be said that the present invention according to "a combination of a specific compound and rilpivirine" falls within a scope that allows a person skilled in the art to recognize the solution of a problem from the description of the specification of the present application, as the combination has neither any experimental result in the specification of the present application nor even a ground sufficient to find that it is focused on from the description of the specification of the present application in view of the common technical knowledge.
Appeal 2018-005374 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case where inventive step was denied after interpreting the technical matters described in the Cited document with reference to the Reference in the Cited document relating to the technical matters and the contents of the Reference in the Reference, and acknowledging the Cited invention.
Appeal 2018-009197 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case where priority claims based on the first to third basic applications were not approved because amended matters of the Amended Invention containing a plurality of priority claims are not described in the specification or the like of the above basic applications, the filing date of the fourth basic priority application is acknowledged as the priority date of the application, and inventive step was denied by citing a standard proposal document disclosed before the filing date.
Appeal 2018-013837 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step is denied for a reason that, although it is an invention relating to a game machine, the constitution of electronic components mounted on a substrate thereof is not a technology unique to game machines, but one that was made by applying a constitution in general electronic devices to a game machine.
Appeal 2018-013965 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step of an invention related to a method for manufacturing an acrylic acid was denied with respect to one different feature, "the step of executing vacuum distillation," by determining a matter of common general technical knowledge and a matter of well-known conventional art as of the priority date of the case using several publications.
Invalidation 2016-800014 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which with regard to the invention of a building board, the body has considered pigments and inks, etc. individually as different features in comparison to the cited invention, and negated the inventive step, stating that it cannot be said that it is particularly difficult to consider the whole formulation of pigments and inks, etc., while it is necessary to do so.
Invalidation 2016-800058 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims A case in which a patent for an invention in which ash content of cellulose fiber aggregate used as an absorber for retaining liquid in spray cans is numerically limited was invalidated by reasons for invalidation due to violation of the support requirement and for which meeting the requirement for inventive step based on the working examples in the description is doubtful.
Invalidation 2017-800151 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Usurped Application, Novelty A case where usurped application was not approved, regarding the reasons for invalidation that the Corrected invention is a patent relating to usurped application of the Invention A-1, because the Invention A-1 is irrelevant to judging an inventor of the Corrected invention due to a difference between characteristic portions for solving the technical problem of the Corrected invention and the configuration of the Invention A-1.
Opposition 2015-700019 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Description/Claims A case in which, with respect to the measurement method of "the proportion of insoluble solid content" according to the present invention of processed foods and drinks, the body has determined that the method does not conform to the enablement requirement and definiteness requirement, stating that the criteria for having a viscosity and the criteria for the necessity of water washing are not disclosed, which prevents a person skilled in the art from properly reproducing the invention.
Opposition 2018-700207 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, although it is supposed that the constitution of a pin of the patent invention of the case has a working effect that manufacturing cost can be reduced compared with conventional types, the working effect of the patent invention of the case that manufacturing cost can be reduced is denied for the reason that, when seen as a whole combination, the pin has a complicated shape, and it is determined that the constitution of the different feature is nothing but a design change.
Opposition 2018-700324 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Secret Prior Art In the present case, regarding the difference between the Patent Invention and the Earlier Application Invention, the Patent Invention and the Earlier Application Invention are determined to not be substantially identical with each other because, even if an addition, deletion, conversion, or the like of a well-known technique or a conventional technique is performed in the Earlier Application Invention, the configuration of the Patent Invention related to the different feature cannot be made.

2. Designs

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2019-001971 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) The article to the design in the application is "Flowing used side by side on a floor," and the design in the application forms a parallel strip part with bright and dark color tone in streaks or nodes of a grain tone rather than the bonding of narrow plates that is a conventionally common technique, and has creativity with a characteristic form.
Invalidation 2016-880020 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Since Cited Design is not within the scope of identity with the design for which the application of provision of exceptions to lack of novelty was sought, the application of provisions of Article 4(2) was not made to Cited Design, and it is judged that the Registered Design is similar to Cited Design.

3. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2012-005098 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case in which it is determined that it cannot be said that the trademark in the Application is well known although the trademark in the Application has a certain degree of awareness, because no submitted evidence objectively confirms the advertisement, the sales volume, and the like of the use product and the like and according to the questionnaire result.
Appeal 2017-017053 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case in which it was judged that the designated goods of the trademark in the Application and the designated services of Cited Trademark are similar, since it is normally observed in commercial transactions that the sale of goods and providing services such as retail sales that treat the goods are carried out by the same person, and there is a risk of confusion about the source of goods.
Appeal 2018-009768 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case where it is determined that, when the trademark in the Application is used for the designated goods thereof as a position trademark, consumers of the goods can recognize the trademark in the Application as a mark for indicating the source of the goods related to the business of the appellant according to the use facts of the trademark in the Application.

Return to Table of Contents

Updated documents (November 2019)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2017-002651 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which it has been judged that there is a motive to apply the technology described in Cited Document 2 to Cited Invention on the ground that, in Cited Invention that performs a press-and-hold input, it is obvious for a person skilled in the art, as with the input device described in Cited Document 2, that performing feedback to an input is useful, and there is no cause to prevent doing so.
Appeal 2017-012027 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step is denied on the ground that, regarding an invention related to a water cut-off structure of an electric wire with a terminal, a term concerning the claim is not defined at all in the detailed description of the invention and the like, and, in addition, can be said to be a variable one that differs by installation environments of an electric wire, and, therefore, a substantive difference from a cited invention cannot be acknowledged.
Appeal 2017-013123 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which the present application is judged to be one that satisfies none of the enabling requirement, Ministerial Ordinance Requirement, the clarity requirement, and the support requirement on the ground that, in an example according to simulation, necessary information for a supplementary examination is lacking, and, in addition, data that are discrepant from the statement of the claims are used.
Appeal 2017-013708 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, regarding a constitution, in the present invention that is of a game machine such as pachinko, to branch to a change performance or an additional performance after having displayed images of an identical character, inventive step has been denied based on a combination of Cited Documents different from that of Appellant's allegation.
Appeal 2017-015477 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims/Description A case related to inspection of irregularities of a composite material, in which The Invention, for which inventive step was not recognized in the Examiner's decision, was judged by the body as violating the clarity requirements and the enablement requirements.
Appeal 2017-015550 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step, Amendment The case, for authentication processing relating to the invention, where the matter of setting a second threshold value, which is used in authentication processing at a second position located downstream of a first position, to be higher than a first threshold value which is used in authentication processing executed in passing through the first position, is considered as a design matter which can be appropriately implemented based on a security level or the like.
Appeal 2017-015802 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Description A case in which the body has determined conformity to the enablement requirement with regard to the present invention directed to an electrode catalyst for a fuel cell comprising "a crystalline catalyst particle" specified by the matter of "indium is present between palladium atoms forming a unit lattice of palladium".
Appeal 2017-016402 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which the body has determined that neither the enablement requirement nor the support requirement is satisfied, stating that the test result of the composition according to the present invention is not at all described in the specification of the present application, and under such circumstances, it is obvious that a test result submitted later may not complement the description of the specification of the present application.
Appeal 2017-016841 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Secret Prior Art, Requirements for Claims A case in which the collegial body has determined that, with regard to the present invention directed to a nematic liquid crystal composition, it cannot be said that a feature distinct from an invention of the earlier application is substantial even in view of the significance of the effects caused by the selection of compounds, and thus the present invention is the same as the invention of the earlier application.
Appeal 2018-001932 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims A case in which, in response to reasons for refusal of the scope of "medical act" being indefinite with regard to the recitation of "(excluding medical act)" that was included in the amendment for the purpose of dissolving the violation of Article 29(1), main paragraph of the Patent Act, the recitation has been deleted and the recitation of "for assessing use effect of skin-care cosmetics on skin condition" has been included, in the amendment which has overcome the reasons for refusal.
Appeal 2018-004162 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step was denied because the following two differences, regarding a wire structure constituting a loop antenna, between Invention and Cited Invention are easily conceived by a person of ordinary skill in the art: a thickness of an insulator is specified; and two conductors are connected by one of parallel connection, series connection, and a combination of parallel connection and series connection.
Appeal 2018-007609 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case where an inventive step cannot be approved with the effects alleged by the appellant regarding independent and separate arrangement of a touch panel display part and a pressing operation button part of a washing machine related to the Invention, because the effects are not based on the matters described in the specification of the application.
Invalidation 2016-800004 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which the IP High Court has supported the trial decision that determined the conformance to the support requirement of the present invention, which is specified as a competing antibody with respect to the binding with a specific antigen, and an antibody to be specified by amino acid sequences of heavy chain variable region and light chain variable region.
Invalidation 2017-800044 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty A case in which business negotiation materials on a new development technology, which implicitly are required not to be disclosed to a third party, are not considered as evidence for a publicly known invention even if the materials are not explicitly specified by "an indication 'confidential'".
Invalidation 2018-800040 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF)   A case in which it was acknowledged, with respect to a patent on a tape or thread for double eyelid formation and a method for manufacturing the same, that a settlement between Demandant and the patentee to the effect that the validity of the patent right should not be contested by demanding a trial for invalidation has been made and the demand was dismissed by judging that Demandant is not any "interested person."
Opposition 2017-700891 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, against an allegation by the Patentee that disputes validity of cited inventions that have been recognized based on respective articles of blogs submitted by the Opponent having different publicly known dates from each other, it is judged that a difference in publicly known dates has no influence at all on finding of an invention or a technical matter.
Opposition 2018-700497 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which the body has accepted a correction and made a decision to maintain a patent for the present invention directed to a fly ash and a method of producing fly ash-mixed cement, although the Opponent alleged each of the reasons for revocation of granting the patent in violation of Article 29(1)(iii), 36(6)(ii), and 36(4)(i) of the Patent Act on the grounds of non-patent literature.

2. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2018-002427 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case where the trademark in the Application that has a name including "" at the end falls under the grounds of unregistability, since the trademark in the Application is wrongly recognized as a trademark related to a national license, undercuts citizens' confidence in the national license system, and is liable to contravene public order.
Rescission 2016-300561 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) The case in which registration of the trademark in question was canceled under the provisions of Article 53(1) of the Trademark Act because it was inferred that the owner of the trademark right allowed the owner of non-exclusive right to use the trademark, to use a trademark that resembles the trademark in question and was aware of the fact of such use, and there is no fact that proves that the owner of the trademark right executed due care.

Return to Table of Contents

Updated documents (October 2019)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2015-014737 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step The case of upholding an appeal decision in which the court ruled that the description of a problem to be solved in a primary reference is a matter of degree and does not proactively exclude a configuration similar to the Invention, against the allegation of the plaintiff (appellant) that there is a disincentive to reaching the Invention.
Appeal 2016-006542 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, regarding the Invention that is a hybrid fuel supply system of an engine for a vessel, inventive step has been denied on the grounds that it is a matter of common general technical knowledge to provide an alternative system so as to prevent trouble on a usual voyage in case of a failure of a fuel gas adjustment plant.
Appeal 2016-016153 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, regarding the Invention that is of a metering and mixing device for multi-component substances, common general technical knowledge that has not been mentioned in the decision of refusal was recognized, and it is judged that, in the Invention Described in Publication 1, it would have been easy to apply Well-Known Art based on the common general technical knowledge in question.
Appeal 2017-000933 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, although the order of corresponding steps are different between the Invention and Cited Invention, it is judged that the order of the steps is not a substantive different feature, because it is only prescribed that the Invention comprises each step, and temporal relationships between respective steps is not specified.
Appeal 2017-003343 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which the collegial body has negated inventive step, stating that an adiponectin production promoting agent consisting of a mixture to which a mulberry leaf extract and a mangosteen fruit rind extract are added in combination has no synergistic effects caused by the combination of extracts, since the specification of the present application does not show an appropriate comparative test.
Appeal 2017-012323 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims, Inventive Step A case in which it is judged, with respect to an invention of a method for manufacturing polarizing films, that a person skilled in the art cannot recognize that the problem to be solved by the invention cannot be solved by the invention of the application, because the experimental conditions disclosed in Examples in the Specification are completely different from the conditions in the invention of the application.
Appeal 2017-014634 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Inventive Step Regarding the Invention that is a vehicular duct, the amendment at the time of request for appeal could not be recognized as restriction of the scope of claims, even if satisfying purpose requirements of amendment, and the amendment was dismissed, as the inventive step of the Amended Invention could not be recognized and independent requirements for patentability were not satisfied, and the inventive step of the Invention before the amendment was denied.
Appeal 2017-016683 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty A case in which, against an Appellant's allegation that a problem to be solved by the Amended Invention is not described in Cited Document, its novelty has been denied on the grounds that it is obvious from processing to be performed in Cited Invention that the problem to be solved has also been solved in Cited Invention.
Appeal 2017-018876 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step is recognized on the ground that, regarding the Invention that is of a current detection device, a motive for making, in Cited Invention, arrangement be one like that of the Invention cannot be found when taking into consideration the purpose of adopting the arrangement of such as a magneto-electric transducer in Cited Invention.
Appeal 2018-001343 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case regarding an Invention "MATRIX INNOVATION MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR HOME-VISIT NURSING CARE", which is not "a technical idea utilizing a law of nature" and not an invention which is concretely realized by using hardware resources even though it is a computer software-related invention.
Appeal 2018-005519 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step A case in which the collegial body has determined that "a skin cleaning composition for the suppression of body odor of elderly people" of the present invention involves novelty and inventive step over "hair shampoo" (a skin cleaning composition) of the Cited invention, stating that "the use for the suppression of body odor of elderly people" provides a new use.
Invalidation 2016-800135 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims/Description For the case regarding encoding servo band identification information in the invention described in Evidence A No. 1, it was concluded that there is no motivation to employ another encoding method in the invention described in Evidence A No. 1, because no evidence has been submitted which describes or indicates the presence of some kind of problem.
Invalidation 2017-800160 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Case where the demandant is not found to be a person having an interest "as of the trial decision" of this case, and therefore the demandant is not deemed to be an "interested person" against the allegation that the demandant of the trial for invalidation for which "any person" may file a request before the 2014 revision should fall under the "interested person" after the 2014 revision.
Opposition 2018-700001 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which, regarding a patent of a protection mat for an electromagnetic cooker, a correction is approved and, subsequently, grounds for opposition to the grant of a patent that has not been adopted in the notice of Reasons for Revocation is examined, and the patent is maintained on the grounds that allegation of the Opponent regarding deficiency in description has no reason and that the Invention has novelty and inventive step.
Opposition 2018-700758 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which the collegial body has maintained a patent, stating that the patent directed to a sheet for fiber reinforced plastic mold cannot claim the benefit of priority; however, it involves novelty and inventive step, and conforms to the ministerial ordinance requirement, support requirement, and definiteness requirement.
Correction 2017-390124 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) The case in which correction was not approved, judging that, in an invention that relates to organic compounds expressed with a chemical formula comprising constituents, "R," any correction that involves change in the definition of "R" cannot be any correction for the purpose set forth in each item of proviso to Article 126(1) of the Patent Act, and does not comply with the requirement set forth in Article 126(6) of the Patent Act.
Correction 2018-390088 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) In the Invention, which is an ultrasonic wave measurement device, while the correction for the purpose of the dissolution of a citation relation only is approved, it is judged that the correction for the additional purpose of restriction of the scope of claims does not satisfy independent requirements for patentability.

2. Designs

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2018-013003 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) The article to the design of the design in the application is "PROGRAMMABLE CONTROLLER," and the part in the application and the part of the principal design are common in the aesthetic impression on the form of the front surface upper portion and the front surface lower portion, in addition to the form of the entire part. Although the size and scope of the two parts are different, it was determined that the design in the application is similar to the principal design.

3. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2017-016718 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case in which it is determined that since the trademark in the Application consists of a well and uniformly integrated configuration of a figure portion and alphabetic characters, judging from the integrity of its configuration and meaning, it is not natural to separately observe the figure portion and the alphabetic character portion and the portions are inseparably combined with each other.
Appeal 2018-000570 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case in which, since sounds of set fireworks according to the trademark in the Application are only used in a form that is heard by the audience as sounds in association with a video of the set fireworks, it is determined that the firework sound itself of the case is not recognized as a mark for distinguishing relevant products from others.

Return to Table of Contents

Updated documents (September 2019)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2017-004956 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, regarding the term "approximately coaxially" in the present invention that pertains to an optical imaging apparatus, a difference from the cited invention was judged in a manner dividing into the two cases of: using the term as the meaning of not being coaxial, but being almost coaxial; and using the term synonymous with "coaxial", resulting in denial of inventive step.
Appeal 2017-018023 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Description The Invention that is a device for generating heat while generating neutrons, even considering the experiment results, from the detailed description of the invention, cannot be understood as one in which excess heat is generated by a nuclear fusion reaction, and is determined that it does not satisfy enablement requirements.
Invalidation 2014-800187 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF)   A case in which the parties are not allowed, in the re-examination, to repeat the same allegation as the existing one that the recognition and determination in the decision is an error or to establish a new fact for proving the allegation because the binding power in the court decision of cancellation lies in the findings and legal judgments necessary for deriving the court decision.
Appeal 2017-014063 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which a collegial body negated the inventive step, stating that neither specific formation method nor support based on an experiment showing function and effect is described in the specification and the like with respect to the adoption of "polyvinylchloride" as a "basic polymer" for forming a blood tube according to the present invention.
Appeal 2017-006367 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, with regard to the present invention directed to tire, the body has determined that a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of matters specifying the invention of making a cross-section profile of a reinforced metal cord a substantially square profile and making a resin layer for adhesion thinner than a resin layer for covering.
Appeal 2017-012572 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty A case in which, the collegial body has negated the novelty, stating that Stannsoporfin of the present invention is specified by a plurality of uses; however, it is not changed as a compound regardless of how it is specified, and thus the present invention is an invention of a compound itself of Stannsoporfin.
Opposition 2018-700153 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims A case in which the collegial body has determined that a "piezoelectric polymer film" of the Invention is different from "a monolayer film" of Invention A-1, and the selection of a target for comparison is improper, and thus the Opponent's allegation is not reasonable, and the patent should not be revoked.
Appeal 2017-017472 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step In this case, regarding the invention relating to the application claiming multiple properties, no effect can be recognized for priority claim based on the earliest application, due to absence of description in the specification or the like of the earliest basic application; priority date of the application is recognized as the filing date of the second priority basic application; and inventive step is denied based on the Cited document published before the filing date.

2. Designs

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2018-008857 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) The article to the design in the application is "Exercise Tool." In the determination of its novelty, as the different features of the specific constitutions, positions on a main part of three pairs of handle parts and the inclination of handles of the handle parts are highly evaluated, and differing from the judgment of the original examination, it was judged that it cannot be said that the design in the application is similar to the cited design.

3. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2017-009488 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Appeal decision on a new trademark regarding a single color indicating that, even when the trademark in the Application consists solely of a single color with no characters is used for the designated goods of the trademark in the Application, a consumer coming into contact with the trademark only recognizes that the single color in the trademark in the Application indicates a color normally used for the package of the product, and the trademark in the Application does not have distinctiveness.

Return to Table of Contents

back number

Return to Table of Contents

Note

[Last updated 12 February 2020]

Contact

Inquiry : Trial and Appeal Division, Japan Patent Office

FAX:+81-3- 3584-1987

E-mail: PA6B00@jpo.go.jp

download Adobe Reader

Some of the publications on this site are in PDF format. To view them, you will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader. Please click the graphic link to download Acrobat Reader.