2024年04月19日
従来技術～発明が解決しようとする課題の「よくない」書き方【リライト版】
【背景技術】から【発明が解決しようとする課題】の部分
について、述べました。
特許の審査官的な視点も踏まえて、ご説明します。
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
ところが、この続きが、以下の記載されていたらどうでしょうか。
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
【課題を解決するための手段】
たとえ機能Ｘがどんなにすばらしいものであったとしてもです。
そう手品師が先にばらしているようなものです。
どのような記載がされていても、客観的に審査は行われるでしょう。
ただ「種明かし」のような書き方は避けた方がよろしいかと思います。
＜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＞
Prior art - “Bad” way to write the problem that the invention is trying to solve [Rewritten version]
In another article, I wrote about how to write patent application documents.
Part from [Background art] to [Problem to be solved by the invention]
I mentioned about.
[How to write patent application documents] Background technology - How to write the problem to be solved by the invention
There is another way of writing that is not recommended, so I would like to introduce it to you.
I will explain this from the perspective of a patent examiner.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
[Background technology]
Conventionally, there was a device A.
↓
[Problem to be solved by the invention]
Since device A does not have the function X, it has the following problem.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
It is sometimes described in a negative way, such as ``there is no function X.''
This type of writing is not necessarily bad.
The examiner who is reviewing the work is also curious about what will happen next, saying, ``Hmm, so what?''
However, what would happen if this continuation was written as follows?
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
[Problem to be solved by the invention]
Since device A does not have the function X, it has the following problem.
↓
[Means to solve the problem]
Device B of the present invention is characterized by adding function X to device A.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Even the examiner was surprised!
No matter how great feature X is.
“If you take off the top hat, a pigeon will appear, so keep an eye on it.”
It's like a magician taking it apart first.
The examiners are excellent.
No matter what is written, it will be objectively reviewed.
However, one element of the examination is something called ``certificate.''
The above may be a bit extreme.
However, I think it would be better to avoid writing in a way that sounds like a ``reveal.''
(This is not an example taken from an actual patent publication. Just to be sure.)
