Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10037
Updated: 1 day ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Display and classification checked: 2026-09-30
Categories: Patents
Topics: Inventive step / Claim interpretation / Enablement / Design choices
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10037
[Cross-sectional image detection apparatus]
(Presiding Judge Hasegawa)
*Inventive step denied
<Inventive step (1: Identification of the gist of the invention)>
(Translation of the quoted judgment)
"Neither the 'image including the axis of the image object of a dental artifact' nor the 'axis of the image object of a dental artifact' in the configuration of Invention 1 at issue asserted by the plaintiff is stated in the claims. It is therefore impermissible to identify the matters specifying Invention 1 at issue based on such matters and compare its configuration with the invention in Exhibit Ko 1."
<Inventive step (2: Successive readily conceivable modifications)>
(Translations of the quoted judgment)
"Regarding difference 1-6, reaching Invention 1 at issue from the invention in Exhibit Ko 1 requires changing the virtual marker of a titanium marker to an image object of a dental implant and, further, making it rotatable about the longitudinal axis of that dental implant. There is insufficient evidence to find that a person skilled in the art could readily have carried out, without particular effort, reaching the configuration concerning that difference through multiple stages from the primary cited invention (the invention in Exhibit Ko 1)."
"Even if both image objects are common as image objects simulating the insertion position of an artificial tooth root in the jawbone during dental implant treatment, the former is a virtual marker of a titanium marker inserted into a radiographic stent fitted to the patient's missing-tooth site, whereas the latter is merely a virtual image object arbitrarily positioned on the image. Their technical significance therefore differs, and changing the former to the latter cannot be described as a design matter that a person skilled in the art could make as appropriate."
<Inventive step (3: Relationship with enablement)>
(Translation of the quoted judgment)
"The assessment of inventive step, which concerns whether the inventions at issue can be conceived from cited inventions and well-known technology, and the assessment of enablement, which concerns whether the problems, means of solution and operations and effects of the inventions at issue can be implemented, differ in their underlying circumstances and assessment of the requirements. They cannot be linked and judged in a simplistic manner, as the plaintiff argues, such as concluding that inventive step is lacking if implementation is possible using well-known conventional technology A."
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7509882848741363712/
Related articles and decisions
Updates and corrections
This log starts on 30 September 2026. Display and classification checks are distinct from a review of the legal analysis.
2026-09-30 — Presentation update: added the article type, this change log and a link to consultation options. The existing article text was preserved.
Comments