IP High Court, 2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10039 — Laser Processing Apparatus (Miyasaka)
Updated: 3 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Patents
Topics: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away
First published on this website: 2026-10-16
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-17
Case information: 2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10039
IP High Court, 2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10039 — Laser Processing Apparatus (Miyasaka)
“Exhibit Ko 1 does not describe any need to ascertain the position or size of the modified region relative to the principal surface of the processing region. … It merely suggests that, by using an infrared image sensor, reflected infrared light (laser light) is used to adjust focus and image the surface of the workpiece. … Nor can it be found that the existence of such a need was well known or part of common general technical knowledge.”
⇒ Inventive step: affirmed.
* The court held that it was inappropriate for the trial decision, as a reason for denying motivation, to find that the specification did not describe the technical significance of Features F and G of Invention 1 relating to Difference 1. Nevertheless, the conclusion did not change.
Merely pointing out flaws in the trial decision is insufficient to have it revoked. From the patentee’s perspective, there is no need to defend the trial decision’s reasoning.
Originally published: 2025-03-07
Original Japanese post: https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12888984577.html
Related articles
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this website.
2026-10-16: The AMEBLO source was first published on this website.
2026-10-17: Added classification, topic tags, article information, translation navigation, related articles, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original article text was not changed.
Comments