2025年06月29日
特許の文章はなぜわかりにくいか？改めて考えてみた【リライト版】
どのような特許（先行特許）が存在しているか調べる必要があります。
特許公報を読むときの参考になればと思います。
R（Reason）：理由
E（Example）：例示
P（Point）：結論
書類全体としては、PREP法に近い構成になっています。
特許では、ある物を、別のわかりやすい物に例えることはあります。
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
これが、特許の文章です。
最もわかりやすいのは、
＝将来的に補正の根拠とならないものは書かない
「将来的に補正（特許請求の範囲の補正）の根拠（材料）となる内容」
これが特許の出願書類で重要な記載であることは間違いありません。
こうして文章などで表現されることはほとんどないでしょう。
今後もこうした肌感覚の知見も、シェアしていければと思います。
＜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＞
Why are patent documents difficult to understand? A fresh look [Rewritten version]
Patent documents are said to be difficult to understand.
When you invent something and apply for a patent, you do a patent search.
You need to find out what kind of patents (prior patents) exist.
However, patent bulletins are very difficult to understand.
I have reconsidered the reason for this.
I hope this will be helpful when reading patent bulletins.
■Why are patent documents difficult to understand?
First, let's think about the opposite. What kind of sentences are easy to understand?
One way of writing and speaking that is known to be easy to understand is the PREP method.
P (Point): Conclusion
R (Reason): Reason
E (Example): Example
P (Point): Conclusion
I wrote about patent documents in another article (here).
The document as a whole is structured similarly to the PREP method.
However, each explanation is not PREP.
In particular, there is no E (Example) section.
As a result, patent text is difficult to understand.
■Specific examples of patent text that is difficult to understand
It was an exaggeration to say that there are no examples.
In patents, something is sometimes likened to another easy-to-understand object.
For example, it may be likened to a "donut shape."
Also, "rubber" may be given as an example of an "elastic material."
However, the "whole description" is never an "analogy."
When I say "analogy," for example... (lol) it's something like this.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
"How much is 1 trillion yen? ① If you spend 2 million yen a day, it would take about 1,500 years. ② Even if you spend 2 million yen a day since Soga no Iruka was assassinated, there is still 2 million yen left today. ”
************************************************************
With analogies like these (① and ②), it would be easy to understand.
Without analogies like these, the explanation would continue with just the figure of 1 trillion yen…
This is patent writing.
■Reasons for not writing analogies in patent application documents
There are several reasons for not writing analogies in patent application documents.
The most obvious one is that
✓Patent application documents should include things that will be the basis for corrections in the future
=Do not write things that will not be the basis for corrections in the future
There is a way of thinking (tacit understanding).
It may be an exaggeration to say that they should be written or not written.
“Content that will be the basis (material) for corrections (corrections to the scope of patent claims) in the future”
There is no doubt that this is an important description in patent application documents.
An analogy (content like ① and ②) does not provide material for corrections.
■I will also share my intuitive knowledge of patents
This article is like a monologue, but I hope it will be of some use to you.
(Will it be helpful to those who are new to patent practice or those who read patent documents?)
The ideas in this article are acquired intuitively by those who have been working in patent practice for a long time.
It is unlikely that they will be expressed in writing like this.
I would like to continue sharing these intuitive insights in the future.
