Analysis of the Invention through an Experiment for Clarifying a Problem of Patent Law<br/>—Based on Abstraction of Invention by “Principle and Its Use”, and “a Shape, a Structure, Properties and Their Transformation of an Article”
- 1 Kageyama International Law & Patent Firm, Tokyo, Japan
Abstract
Author proposed so far to arrange two-dimensional technology and inventions which are objects to judge the inventiveness and others for patent inventions, using two perspectives (coordinate axes), that is, 1) the combination, shape structure, and physical or chemical characteristics and its transformation of an article which are factors for a physical-object invention and a material invention, and 2) principle, its use and the ways of its use. This coordinates may show abstraction (norm-forming) for technology and inventions. There are, however, cases where the inventions are made through experiments and principles and their use are unknown. Most of material inventions are included in this case. This case usually shows difficulty in understanding problems under patent law such as invention and its identification of an article (including the relation with PBP claims also), inventiveness, interpretation of claims, etc. In this paper, Author will analyze inventions and try to arrange two-dimensional inventions through experiments, using the above two perspectives, especially about the above 2), considering the principles and their use supporting each raw materials and each manufacturing process, and furthermore considering the effect based on materials and manufacturing process above. Author will analyze inventions through experiments so as to help the actual patent practice, considering the relation with actual patent guidelines and using examples in patent gazette.
- Kageyama, K. (2012). The Practice of Recognizing an Inventor/Joint Inventors and the Calculation of Contribution Ratios among Joint Inventors. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (Oxford Journals), 7, 699-712. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps090
- Kageyama, K. (2014). Necessity, Criteria (Requirements or Limits) and Acknowledgement of Product Identity of Claims for Product Described by Its Manufacturing Process (Product-by-Process Claims). Beijing Law Review, 5, 114-129. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2014.52011
- Kageyama, K. (2015). Recognition of Inventor/Joint Inventors and Product-by-Process Claims-Based on Consideration of Categorization into Physical-Object & Material Inventions and Formation Process of Inventions. Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
- Kageyama, K. (2017). The Physical-Object Invention and the Material Invention—Efficient Use of a Categorization Based on Looks (Appearance and Property). Beijing Law Review, 8, 334-372. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2017.83020
- Kageyama, K. (2017). Unified Approach for Inventive Step and Claim Interpretation. Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
- Kageyama, K. (2018). Analysis of TRIZ’s Invention Principles. The TRIZ Journal. https://triz-journal.com/