2015 (Gyo-Ke) 10127 [Laser Processing Apparatus] <Takabe>
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-05-12 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2015 (Gyo-Ke) 10127 [Laser Processing Apparatus] <Takabe>
Difference 1: “There is no motivation to replace pressurized water with a gas having lower cooling capacity. Moreover, if the pressure medium is changed to gas without regard to cooling capacity, circulation to cool the pressure medium becomes unnecessary, leaving no reason to provide a fluid discharge path separate from the fluid supply path.”
Difference 4: “In the cited invention, it is itself unclear whether there is a difference in width (diameter) between the fluid discharge path and the fluid supply path.” +No motivation
⇒ Inventive step: satisfied
------------------------------
*Difference 1 (whether the fluid is gas or water)
The court first addressed whether “Fluid” in the cited reference generally refers to a fluid encompassing both liquids and gases. The original reference was in German; while “Fluid” may be translated as “fluid,” the plaintiff argued that it could also mean a liquid, as in automotive terminology. Considering several English-German-Japanese and German-Japanese dictionaries and the publication of the corresponding Japanese application, the court found a sufficient possibility that “Fluid” in the cited reference was used as a broad concept encompassing liquids and gases.
The court further found that techniques using gas instead of liquid in mirrors controlling laser-beam curvature were shown in well-known references (such as References 1 and 3). Taking these matters together, it held that adopting gas rather than pressurized water in the cited invention was something a person skilled in the art could readily conceive. In other words, it affirmed obviousness for Difference 1 and, consistently with the trial decision's conclusion, found no inhibiting factor against the idea of substituting gas based on the cited reference.
*Difference 4 (making the fluid discharge path narrower than the supply path)
The invention at issue is said to aim to apply the required pressure to the rear surface with a small flow rate and shorten response time by making the discharge path narrower than the gas supply path (specification [0031]). This is said to offer the advantage of accelerating the response of a variable-curvature mirror even when using gas, a compressible fluid, and permitting free adjustment of the laser-beam diameter.
By contrast, the cited invention presupposes circulation of pressurized water and contains no description of narrowing the discharge or supply pipes to generate pressure with a small amount of fluid. The court examined whether a person skilled in the art would derive from the cited invention the idea of “making the discharge path narrower than the supply path to raise pressure efficiently.”
+Examination of well-known technology
The trial decision had cited as well known a technique for raising pressure by restricting the discharge side in systems using gas. However, after examining the cited well-known references (such as References 10 and 11), the court held that they either concerned different technical fields or did not directly show “raising pressure by changing the relative widths of the supply and discharge paths.”
In particular, it held that Reference 11 (gas-replacement technology within a storage chamber) concerned a field entirely different from laser processing and gave no direct suggestion to apply “a configuration making the discharge path narrower than the supply path” to the invention at issue. It also explained that References 7–9 taught that “the piping volume should be reduced because of the compressibility of gas,” but could not be said to suggest relative widths of the “discharge path” and “supply path.”
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The opening quotation says there is no motivation to replace pressurized water with gas, while the later narrative says the court affirmed obviousness of that substitution. Both inconsistent source statements are fully translated without harmonizing them.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments