2025年04月29日
「どういう発明が公知だと特許が取れないか？」と逆算して特許調査する【リライト版】
調査の名称とその内容はあいまいに使われていることも多いようです。
✓お客様がどのような調査を望むのかを、きちんと理解すること
調査の名称や定義などは、ある意味、どうでもよいことです。
この判断には、特許庁の審査と同じような調査を行う必要があります。
✓どういう発明が公知だと、調査対象発明が容易に発明できるか？
そう逆算して調査します。
（容易に発明できる→発明に進歩性がなく特許が取れない）
「野球のスイング速度を、特殊な方法で計測する装置」
とします。
これで十分かも知れません。
どのような技術思想があれば、それを野球に転用できるだろうか？
本記事のメインのお話しはここまでです。
③の調査では本記事のようなさまざまな観点の調査をお勧めします。
「後付けの論理」と呼ばれ、必ずしも適切でない場合があります。
✓野球の発明を「先に見た」からこそできる論理です。
ゴール地点に立って、スタート地点からどのように来ればよいか？
そう考えるのは、本来、適切ではありません。
審査では、この点を客観的に判断するのが原則です。
そう考えるべきです。
そのことはわからないことがほとんどです。
また、後付けの論理であることを、直接反論するのは、難しいです。
調査で発見された公知発明に対抗できるような内容を盛り込みます。
（公知発明から容易に発明できないことを盛り込むイメージ）
これが特許出願書類を作成する上での一つの理想と言えるのです。
＜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＞
Patent research is done by working backwards from the question, "What kind of inventions are publicly known that cannot be patented?" [Rewritten version]
There are various types of patent research that can be done before filing a patent application.
They are often called "prior art research," "prior patent research," and "prior research."
However, there is no clear definition.
The name of the research and its contents are often used ambiguously.
For example, there are the following researches.
① Research to check whether an invention exactly the same as the researched invention exists
② Research to list all inventions related to the researched invention
③ Research to determine whether the researched invention can be patented?
The important thing for the researcher is
✓ To properly understand what kind of research the customer wants
In a sense, the name and definition of the research are irrelevant.
*
We are a patent office and handle patent application procedures.
The research required for this is mainly type ③.
If we had to give the research a name, we would call it a "patentability research."
Will the invention that the client is seeking to patent (the invention under investigation) be patentable?
To make this decision, it is necessary to conduct a similar investigation to the examination by the Japan Patent Office.
Roughly speaking,
✓ What kind of inventions are publicly known that would make it easy to invent the invention under investigation?
The investigation should be done by working backwards from that point.
(Easy to invent → the invention lacks inventive step and cannot be patented)
For example, let's say the invention under investigation is
"a device that measures baseball swing speed using a special method".
"Baseball", "swing", "speed measurement" are the keywords.
For investigations of ① and ②, select several keywords and perform an AND operation.
This may be sufficient.
However, to conduct investigations of ③, other perspectives are also necessary.
For example,
Is it possible that a similar invention exists in tennis?
What about outside of sports, for example, car navigation systems?
Are there similar inventions in car navigation systems?
What kind of technological ideas would be applicable to baseball?
The issues to be considered are not just a ratio of ① to ②.
This is the end of the main topic of this article.
For the research in ③, we recommend researching from various perspectives as described in this article.
■Additional information (post-hoc logic)
I wrote "Research similar to that of the Patent Office's review."
I then gave tennis and car navigation as examples.
However, in reality, this kind of logical development is tricky as a review method.
It is called "post-hoc logic" and may not always be appropriate.
In other words, the logic of tennis and car navigation above is possible only because
✓We have "seen" the invention of baseball first.
When you are at the finish line, how should you come from the starting point?
It is not appropriate to think like that.
✓Looking at the inventions of tennis and car navigation, can you imagine the invention of baseball?
The rule in reviewing is to judge this point objectively.
Is it easy to reach the finish line by groping around from the starting point?
That is what you should think.
Let's suppose that post-hoc logic was used in the review.
It is almost always impossible to know this.
It is also difficult to directly refute the fact that this is post-hoc logic.
(Even if it is clearly post-hoc logic, it is best to just note it.)
That is why it is effective to carry out the research mentioned in item ③ beforehand.
Then, write your patent application documents based on this research.
Include content that can compete with publicly known inventions discovered in the research.
(Imagine including something that cannot be easily invented from a publicly known invention.)
This is one ideal way to write patent application documents.
