2026年09月11日
「引用形式請求項」と「従属項」は違うのか？【リライト版】
＜目次＞
（１）使用者
（２）定義
（３）特許出願人側が「従属項」を用いる理由を考えてみた
「引用形式請求項」は、特許庁（審査官）側が使うことが多いです。
「引用形式請求項」は、単に形式的なものです。
「従属項」は、引用形式請求項と同じ意味で使うこともあります。
また、後述するように違う意味で使うこともあります。
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
【請求項２】請求項１に記載のカメラにおいて、第１レンズに代えて第２レンズを備えたカメラ。
✓請求項１（独立項）の特許性を主張します。
そして、「従属項」については、
✓独立項の発明を限定した発明については、当然に特許性を有する
と主張します。
この観点から「従属項」という表現が存在していると考えてみました。
→必ずしも、請求項１（第１のレンズを備えたカメラ）の限定ではない
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＞
Are "Claims in Reference Form" and "Dependent Claims" Different? [Revised Version]
(Q) Are "claims in reference form" and "dependent claims" different?
(A) I believe the best approach is to define each term and use them appropriately depending on the context.
The key points are outlined below.
<Table of Contents>
(1) Users
(2) Definitions
(3) Reasons why patent applicants use "dependent claims"
■ (1) Users
"Claims in reference form" are frequently used by the Patent Office (examiners).
"Dependent claims" are frequently used by patent applicants (patent attorneys).
■ (2) Definitions
A "claim in reference form" is simply a matter of format.
It refers to a claim that cites another claim when being drafted.
The term "dependent claim" is sometimes used to mean the same thing as a claim in reference form.
However, as discussed later, it can also be used to convey a different meaning.
According to the Patent Office, a "claim in reference form" is strictly a formal designation.
For example, the following types of drafting are possible:
(These are somewhat extreme examples; I am not recommending this style of drafting.)
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
[Claim 3] A transmission/reception system comprising a combination of the transmitter according to Claim 1 and the receiver according to Claim 2.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
[Claim 2] The camera according to Claim 1, comprising a second lens in place of the first lens.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
■ (3) Reasons why patent applicants use "dependent claims"
✓ Used simply as common industry terminology (perhaps a translation from English?)
✓ Convenience in written arguments (responses to office actions)
I have cited convenience in written arguments as one point of discussion.
When arguing for the patentability of the claimed invention in a written argument:
✓ One argues for the patentability of Claim 1 (the independent claim). Regarding "dependent claims," the argument is that:
✓ An invention that limits the invention of an independent claim naturally possesses patentability.
It would be ideal if we could clearly define "an invention that limits the invention of an independent claim" (★).
I considered the existence of the term "dependent claim" from this perspective.
If "dependent claims" differ from "claims in reference format," this is the point of distinction.
A claim in reference format does not necessarily satisfy the condition of (★).
For example, consider the extreme case mentioned earlier:
A claim in reference format stating "a camera equipped with a second lens"
→ This is not necessarily a limitation of Claim 1 ("a camera equipped with a first lens").
Even if Claim 1 is patentable, Claim 2 is not necessarily patentable.
<To be continued>
