Heisei 10 (Gyo-Ke) No. 82 — Semiconductor device (Judge Shinohara)
Updated: 3 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Patents
Topics: Examination and appeal practice
First published on this website: 2026-10-16
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-17
Case information: Heisei 10 (Gyo-Ke) No. 82
Heisei 10 (Gyo-Ke) No. 82 — Semiconductor device (Judge Shinohara)
TI v. Fujitsu
*The court recognized “identity” under Article 39(1) and held the patent invalid.
(Excerpts from the judgment, translated; portions omitted)
…In light of the gist of the invention, the “planar arrangement” of requirement e merely summarizes that the semiconductor-device circuit formed by the preceding requirements is consequently “arranged essentially in a plane.” It duplicates the other requirements and has no particular technical significance….
The circuit elements are formed by P-N junctions between diffusion regions and the body, or between diffusion regions, in a semiconductor wafer whose surface is polished by lapping. Their formation surface is therefore flat with little unevenness, resulting in an essentially planar arrangement. The inert insulating material supporting the conductive interconnection material is deposited on the wafer and clearly has a flat surface; the conductive material deposited on it may also be regarded as flat. If the circuit elements and their interconnection material are flat, the electronic circuit they form is naturally arranged in a plane. …The trial decision was therefore correct that difference ⑥ was not substantial.
…Although differences in the claims produce some differences in their scope, a person skilled in the art, considering the purpose, effects and examples in the detailed description as a whole, could not perceive these as differences in the inventions’ technical ideas. The two inventions were substantially identical despite their differently worded claims.
The trial decision was therefore correct to deny retroactive dating under Article 9(1) of the former Patent Act and to find that the patent, filed on its actual filing date of December 21, 1971, violated Article 39(1).
Images from the original AMEBLO article
English translations of the original image text
Original images retained for comparison
Original AMEBLO article
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