2024年05月03日
「前記」でうまく表現できない３すくみの構成要素とは？【リライト版】
「前記」でうまく表現できない場合はどうしたらいいでしょうか？
とします
✔それより前の①でＡが出てきているので「前記」が必要です
✔構成要素を列挙する「と、」の直前に「前記」が来てしまう
この点に違和感があります。
などもこれに当たります。
✔①「と、」で列挙すること
✔②「と、」で列挙した直前に「前記」が来ないようにすること
これらを『決まり』とするならば、３すくみはうまく表現できません。
（少なくとも２とおり考えてみてください。）
発明の本質が適切に表現されていなければ、意味がありません。
特許公報では、形式面ではなく実体的な内容を見るようにしましょう。
本記事は少し抽象的でしたが、イメージは伝わりましたでしょうか。
Ａ：グー、Ｂ：チョキ、Ｃ：パー、接触する→勝つ
と読み替えるとわかりやすいかも知れません。
✔特許法や審査基準などに従うことは、最低限のルールです
あなたの発明の価値を最大限にすることができるはずです。
＜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＞
What are the components of the three-way grid that cannot be expressed well with "the above"? [Rewritten version]
(Q) Regarding the statement of claims in the scope of patent claims.
What should I do if I can't express it well with "the above"?
For example, when defining three things, A, B, and C,
✔A can be defined by B, B can be defined by C, and C can be defined by A.
will do
[Claim 1]
In the ○○ device,
①C in contact with A,
②B in contact with the above C,
③A in contact with B mentioned above,
○○ device characterized by being equipped with.
In the line that defines A in ③,
✔Since A appears in ① before that, "said" is necessary.
However, if we write ③ as "with said A who comes into contact with said B,"
✔“Said” comes just before “and” that lists the constituent elements
I feel uncomfortable with this point.
However, even if I try to fix it, it doesn't work.
What should I do now?
(A) There are things that define each other.
``Three-way such as Goo, Choki, Pa, Snake, Frog, Slug, etc.''
This also applies to.
Indeed, as you asked,
✔① Enumerate with “and”
✔② Make sure that "said" does not appear immediately before enumerating "and".
If we consider these as ``rules,'' then the three-way block cannot be expressed well.
(There is a way to formally resolve this by slightly changing the rules.)
(Think of it in at least two ways.)
But that's not the essence of the problem.
First of all, what is a “decision”?
■When reading patent publications, look at the substance, not the form.
① and ② above are certainly the mainstream ways of writing.
You can often see this mainstream writing style in patent publications as well.
However, the essence is not such a formality.
It is to clearly identify the invention.
If the essence of the invention is not properly expressed, it is meaningless.
The essence of the invention should be clearly expressed, even if it is written in a minor way.
When preparing patent documents, we recommend reading patent publications.
When looking at patent publications, try to look at the substantive content rather than the formal aspects.
■3-way puzzle answer
This article was a little abstract, but did you get the idea across?
Finally, I will list two answers to the three-way puzzle.
[Claim 1]
In the ○○ device,
Comprising A, B, and C,
The A contacts the B,
The B contacts the C,
○○ device characterized in that said C contacts said A.
[Claim 1]
In the ○○ device,
A and
C in contact with said A;
B in contact with the C;
Equipped with
○○ device characterized in that said A contacts said B.
As a replacement,
A: Goo, B: Scratch, C: Par, Contact → Win
It may be easier to understand if you read it as .
As long as the content of the invention is clear, there is no problem at all.
Rather, it may be a statement that emphasizes the point of the invention and is not obvious.
In any case,
✔Following patent laws and examination standards is the minimum rule
✔On the other hand, this is better for patent application documents.
If your invention is important, please consider requesting a patent attorney.
You should be able to maximize the value of your invention.
