[United States] Sigray v. Carl Zeiss (CAFC, May 2025)

日本語原文 / Japanese original

Article information

Article type: Case note

Category: United States

Topics: Motivation and teaching away, Novelty

First published on this website: 2026-11-01

Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026

Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-10-05 (Japan time). Full English translation.

https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12936014207.html

[United States] Sigray v. Carl Zeiss (CAFC, May 2025)

<Novelty>

　Novelty may be denied even if a feature is not recognized as existing in the reference, is present only in a minute amount, or is regarded as unnecessary.

　Teaching away is irrelevant to novelty.

　⇒ Because the beam in the reference was not perfectly parallel, it necessarily diverged, resulting in projection magnification greater than 1×; novelty was therefore denied.

https://ameblo.jp/pa-sigetty/entry-12907025913.html

Consultation guide by purpose

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.