2024年05月18日
背景技術～発明が解決しようとする課題はどのくらい書けばよいか？【リライト版】
この部分は、どの程度の内容を記載すればよいのでしょうか？
ストーリーをうまくつなげてみてください。
（あまりお勧めできるものではありません。）
また、発明のすばらしさは特許になることにあまり関係がありません。
（この点については、ここでは割愛します。別の記事で述べます。）
本来の意味での従来技術とは、
✔本願発明に最も近い技術（＝審査官が認定する従来技術）です
→本願発明を特許に導くために効果的です。
他の従来技術（＝より本願発明に近い技術）があるかも知れません。
その場合、出願書類に記載の対比（ダメ出し）は無意味になります。
しかしこれも、①と同様です。
本願発明が特許になることとは、ほとんど関係がありません。
✔なぜ出願書類の記載を充実させる必要があるのでしょうか？
✔本願発明を補正する根拠が増えるということです。
従来技術の説明は、本願発明を補正する根拠にはなりにくいのです。
ですので、従来技術の説明を充実させる意味は、あまりありません。
✔特許と関係ない部分ではなく、
（従来技術の無意味なダメ出しや、発明の苦労話ではなく）
✔本願発明の説明を充実させる方にぶつけてみてください！
＜お知らせ＞
本記事がいいなと感じたら「シェア」や「いいね！」をお願いします！
「シェア」「Tweet」「いいね！」ボタンは一番下にあります。
スマホの方は、青字に白の「鳥」や「ｆ」ボタンを押してください！
当ブログのサイトマップはこちら！
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
【ＰＲ】個人様・社長様に特化＆元特許審査官が運営する特許事務所！
「おすすめの特許事務所」「おすすめの弁理士」を目指します！
そんな東雲特許事務所（しののめ特許事務所）へのお問い合わせは、
お気軽にこちらからどうぞ！
https://www.patande.com/お問い合わせ/
（↑お問い合わせフォームが開くだけですのでご安心ください。）
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
東雲特許事務所（しののめ特許事務所）
弁理士 田村誠治（元特許庁審査官）
【東京都港区新橋】【東京都中央区八丁堀】【東京都北区田端】
【稀有な経歴】特許技術者→特許庁審査官→特許事務所運営
【楽しいホームページ】
個人発明家・小規模事業者専門の東雲（しののめ）特許事務所
https://www.patande.com/
【特許ドットコム】
個人・小規模事業者のための特許出願
https://tokkkyo.com/
【実案ドットコム】
個人・小規模事業専門＆元特許審査官による実用新案申請代理
https://www.jitsuan.com/
【商標ドットコム】
信頼・明確・安心の商標登録申請代理＜商標ドットコム＞
https://www.shohyou.com/
【ここだけの情報満載のブログ】
個人発明家向け特許・発明教室～目指せ一攫千金！～
https://www.tokkyoblog.com/
【本音モードのブログ】
弁理士のプライベートブログ～弁理士の視点＆審査官の視点～
https://ameblo.jp/s-tam1104/
【Facebook】
Facebookページで、より密な情報交換の場をご提供します。
https://www.facebook.com/shinonomepat
【note】
noteはじめました！ブログとYouTubeを同時に楽しめます。
https://note.com/tokkyoblog
https://youtu.be/sJgjSOk72i4
音は出ませんのでぜひご覧ください
＜機械翻訳＞
Background technology: How much should I write about the problem that the invention aims to solve? [Rewritten version]
(Q) I am preparing the patent application documents myself.
I am confused between [background technology] and [problem to be solved by the invention].
How much content should I include in this section?
(A) What is important in this part is [the problem that the invention seeks to solve].
This is the most important part of certifying your invention.
I think it would be best to write this part concisely so that it is easy to understand.
[Background technology] is a prelude to [Problem to be solved by the invention].
Try to connect the stories well.
<Addendum>
In this section, you will often see statements like the following:
(This is not something I highly recommend.)
① Explain the conventional technology (invention) in detail and endlessly point out its failures.
② The circumstances leading up to the claimed invention are endlessly explained as a story of hardships.
I will explain below.
① Explaining the conventional technology (invention) in detail and endlessly pointing out its failures.
Application documents like this are common. I understand your feelings.
They probably want to emphasize the greatness of the claimed invention by pointing out the failures of the prior art.
However, explanations that are unrelated to the "problem" of the claimed invention are meaningless.
Also, the excellence of an invention has little to do with whether it becomes patentable.
(I will not discuss this point here. I will discuss it in another article.)
Furthermore, in the first place, conventional technology is not necessarily conventional technology in the true sense of the word.
What is conventional technology in its original meaning?
✔This is the technology closest to the claimed invention (=prior art recognized by the examiner)
Certainly, if the claimed invention can be compared with the technology closest to the claimed invention,
→It is effective in guiding the claimed invention to a patent.
There may be other prior art (=techniques closer to the claimed invention).
In that case, the comparison (disqualification) stated in the application documents will be meaningless.
② The circumstances leading up to the claimed invention are endlessly explained as a story of hardships.
I certainly understand how you feel about this.
However, this is also the same as ①.
It has little to do with whether the claimed invention is patented.
■Why is it necessary to fill out application documents?
Related to ① and ② above, in the first place,
✔Why is it necessary to fill out application documents?
As I mentioned in another article, one of its major objectives is to
✔This means that there will be more grounds for amending the claimed invention.
Explanation of the prior art is unlikely to serve as a basis for amending the claimed invention.
Therefore, there is little point in enriching the explanation of the conventional technology.
■The inventor's thoughts are included in the explanation of the claimed invention!
The above is just a discussion from the perspective of the possibility of obtaining a patent.
It is not a bad idea to include the inventor's thoughts in the patent application documents.
However, the inventor's thoughts are
✔Instead of parts unrelated to patents,
(This is not a pointless failure of conventional technology or a story about the hardships of invention.)
✔Please share it with someone who would like to improve the explanation of the claimed invention!
