2025年02月11日
サポート要件（特許法第36条第6項第1号）違反の解消法（１）良性の場合【リライト版】
上記記事でご紹介した２つのタイプはやや抽象的でした。
✔請求項の範囲が広すぎて、本来取りたかった範囲を超えている場合
→その従来技術の部分は、発明の課題を解決していません。
発明の詳細な説明に、従来技術の内容は説明しません。
（特に、発明を実施するための形態の欄）
結果として、サポート要件違反となります。
以下、具体例と解消方法をお伝えします。
→サポート要件違反になります。
アナログカメラとデジタルカメラの両方を含みます。
一方、発明の詳細な説明には、デジタルカメラのみの説明になります。
つまり、サポートされていないということになります。
例えば、構成要素ＡとＢが揃わないと課題を解決できないとします。
にもかかわらず、請求項にＡしか記載されていないことが多いです。
特許請求の範囲が、本来取りたい権利の範囲を超えているだけです。
つまり、従来技術であるアナログカメラを除外すればいいのです。
いかがでしたでしょうか？
＜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＞
How to resolve violations of the support requirement (Article 36, Paragraph 6, Item 1 of the Patent Law) (1) Benign cases [Rewritten version]
This article is a continuation of the following article.
About the two types of violations of the support requirement (Article 36, Paragraph 6, Item 1 of the Patent Law)
The two types introduced in the above article were somewhat abstract.
This article and the next article will explain specific examples and how to resolve them.
■What is a benign violation of the support requirement?
A benign violation of the support requirement is
✔When the scope of the claim is too broad and exceeds the scope that was originally intended
In other words, it is as follows.
The right that was originally intended to be obtained ≦ Contents described in the detailed description of the invention < Contents described in the scope of the patent claim
In many cases, the scope of the patent claim "includes prior art."
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
(Reference) From the Patent Examination Guidelines:
Typical example of a violation of the support requirement:
"When the means for solving the problem of the invention described in the detailed description of the invention are not reflected in the claims, resulting in a claim that goes beyond the scope described in the detailed description of the invention"
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Patent claims include prior art
→That prior art does not solve the problem of the invention.
The detailed description of the invention does not explain the content of the prior art.
(Especially in the section on the mode for carrying out the invention)
As a result, this is a violation of the support requirement.
Below, we will explain specific examples and how to resolve them.
■Specific example
Prior art: Analog camera
Problem: Analog cameras could not correct images
Solution: Digital cameras were provided with an image correction function
If the claim states, "The camera is provided with an image correction function,"
this violates the support requirement.
The scope of the claim is simply "camera."
This includes both analog and digital cameras.
On the other hand, the detailed description of the invention only describes digital cameras.
The scope of the claim therefore exceeds the detailed description of the invention.
In other words, it is not supported.
(Note) This is an extreme example for illustrative purposes only.
<Reference>
In reality, there are often insufficient components of the invention.
For example, suppose that the problem cannot be solved unless components A and B are present.
Despite this, only component A is often described in the claim.
If the claim is short, the examiner will suspect a violation of the support requirement.
■Resolution
So, from the above specific example, you should be able to see what to do.
The scope of the patent claim simply exceeds the scope of the rights that you actually want to obtain.
It may be just a typo, or it may be intentional.
The problem can be solved by removing the excess part (the prior art part).
In the above specific example, you would correct "camera" to "digital camera".
In other words, you simply remove the analog camera, which is prior art.
■Malignant cases...
What did you think?
On the other hand, malicious violations of support requirements can be a bit complicated.
I will discuss this in the next article.
