2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10057 [Spray Products] <Honda>
更新日：3 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Creators and inventors, Working of inventions
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: July 1, 2024 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10057 [Spray Products] <Honda>
Examples were added at the time of filing Priority Application 2 for a compound that had been recited in the claims of the Priority Application 1 specification but for which no examples had been provided.
⇒ The claim to priority based on Priority Application 1 was upheld.
The Priority Application 1 specification explained that the compound shared a common mechanism with another compound described in the examples in Specification 1.
* The Artificial Nipple case involved an application filed by another party during the priority period. Had the intervening act instead been another party's public working or publication, it would probably have raised an issue of partial priority, as in the Brilliant Ring case.
* In the United States as well, Ian Frazer v. Richard Schlegel (CAFC, August 20, 2007) recognized the effect of priority and the applicant's status as the first inventor for an invention in an application claiming Paris Convention priority in which examples had been added, even though another party had filed an application within the priority period. (Patent, 2024, Vol. 77, No. 7, p. 153)
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
… Although the only examples described in the specification and other documents of Priority Application 1 are spray products containing EBAAP as the insect-repellent ingredient, and examples relating to spray products containing icaridin as the insect-repellent ingredient were added in the specification and other documents of Priority Application 2 …, those examples are concrete examples of working Corrected Invention 1 at issue and can also be understood as confirmatory descriptions of concrete examples of working the invention whose defining features had been recited in Claim 1 or 2 of the claims of Priority Application 1. They therefore cannot be said to introduce new technical matters in relation to the technical matters disclosed in the specification and other documents of Priority Application 1. …
In addition to the background art, problem, and means for solving the problem relating to Corrected Invention 1 at issue, the specification and other documents of Priority Application 1 describe the mechanism underlying the effects of the invention and the technical significance of each constituent feature. It can also be understood that these apply in common to EBAAP, p-menthane-3,8-diol, and icaridin. In other words, it is recognized that the specification and other documents of Priority Application 1 set out the technical content of Corrected Invention 1 at issue, including the portion in which the insect-repellent ingredient is icaridin, in a sufficiently concrete and objective form that a person having ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field (a person skilled in the art) could repeatedly work the invention and achieve its intended technical effects.
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.
