2005 (Gyo-Ke) 10645 [Method for Inspecting Sealed Packages] <Tsukahara>
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Enablement, Clarity, Working of inventions
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-09-14 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2005 (Gyo-Ke) 10645 [Method for Inspecting Sealed Packages] <Tsukahara>
*The mechanism described in the claims and specification is contrary to the laws of physics.
⇒ Clarity and enablement requirements not satisfied.
(Excerpt from the court's reasoning)
The trial decision's findings concerning violations of Article 36(4) and (6) of the Patent Act …
Paragraph [0008] states: “Thus, when electrode 4 from the voltage output terminal of high-voltage power supply 6 is brought into contact with or proximity to side portion 31 of sealed package 3, electrically conductive contents 1 within sealed package 3 become charged by the negative or positive potential of the high voltage (0.6 kV–30 kV) applied to electrode 4, generating negative (−) ions or positive (+) ions.” Figure 1 depicts only negative (−) ions as having been generated throughout the contents, but it is unclear how these “negative (−) ions or positive (+) ions” have been generated, and a person skilled in the art cannot readily carry this out. Specifically, if there is no closed circuit and no displacement current flows, or if charge does not travel through side portion 31 of sealed package 3, it is unclear where the charge for generating the negative (−) ions or positive (+) ions is supplied from. If negative (−) ions or positive (+) ions are said to be generated in the contents without charge being supplied from outside the contents, this is contrary to the law of conservation of charge.
…
This court's findings
…
Charging “contents 1 within sealed package 3 through electrically insulating film 2 … by bringing a single electrode 4 into contact with or proximity to … side portion 31 of that sealed package 3,” as in the invention of this application, is contrary to the law of conservation of charge and cannot be achieved by anyone. Such an invention must therefore be regarded as unclear. Nor can the detailed description of the invention in the specification of this application be said to describe it clearly and sufficiently to enable a person skilled in the art to work the invention ….
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