2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10091 [Barrier Laminate] <Miyasaka>
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away, Numerical limitations and parameters
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2024-09-04 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10091 [Barrier Laminate] <Miyasaka>
*For a difference concerning a numerical limitation, the court held that technical significance and obviousness of the configuration are not directly linked.
*From a cited invention demonstrating technical significance through three elements (carbon, oxygen, silicon), the numerical ranges for only two elements (carbon, oxygen) could not be extracted.
⇒ Revocation decision set aside
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
The invention …provides a surface-coating layer containing a resin material having polar groups with excellent adhesion between a polypropylene film and a deposited film, thereby preventing interlayer separation. It also provides, on the deposited film, a barrier-coating layer made of a resin composition of a metal alkoxide and a water-soluble polymer, including cases where a silane coupling agent is used together with them, thereby preventing cracks in the deposited film. Further, it sets the ratio of silicon atoms to carbon atoms at the surface of the barrier-coating layer within a specified range so as to suppress deterioration of gas-barrier properties even during boiling or retort treatment. It thus has the technical significance of providing a barrier laminate for boiling or retort use with high gas-barrier properties. According to the specification, the upper limit of the silicon-to-carbon ratio (Si/C) is set from the standpoint of suppressing deterioration of gas-barrier properties even when the laminate is bent, while the lower limit is set from the standpoint of suppressing such deterioration even when it is heated…. Therefore, Difference 1-3, concerning whether the laminate is for boiling or retort use, and Difference 1-2, concerning the numerical range of the silicon-to-carbon ratio, should be considered together. …
Even if a person skilled in the art contemplated using the food-packaging material of the invention in Exhibit Ko 3 for boiling or retort applications, the ratio of metal atoms among the atoms constituting the overcoat layer in Exhibit Ko 4 is unrelated to whether gas-barrier properties are maintained upon heating. Moreover, Exhibit Ko 4 states the opposite of Exhibit Ko 3 regarding the ratio of carbon to metal atoms and the brittleness of the film. Given these matters, it is unreasonable to derive motivation to focus, within the laminate of Exhibit Ko 4 concerning an outer covering for vacuum insulation material—which differs in both technical field and layered structure from the invention in Exhibit Ko 3—on the descriptions of the overcoat and inorganic layers in the overcoat-coated film, and to refer to the ratio of metal atoms to carbon atoms in the overcoat layer (number of metal atoms/number of carbon atoms) for application to the invention in Exhibit Ko 3. The decision's assessment is erroneous. …
The defendant argues that the Si/C numerical range has no particular technical significance, and that, considering also that it was publicly known, as in Exhibit Ko 4, to examine numerical ranges using “Si/C” for the common technology concerning layered structure, a person skilled in the art could readily have adopted the configuration of the invention relating to Difference 1-2 in the invention in Exhibit Ko 3 by referring to Exhibit Ko 4. …
…However, concerning (1) above, …it cannot immediately be said that there is no technical significance. In the first place, whether technical significance is substantiated and whether a configuration is obvious are not directly linked issues.
Regarding (2) above, merely because the …numerical range of the invention in Exhibit Ko 3 encompasses “at least 0.90 and no more than 1.60,” the numerical range of Invention 1, there is no reasonable basis or technical necessity for extracting only carbon and silicon from Exhibit Ko 3's disclosure, which demonstrates a certain technical significance through numerical ranges of carbon, oxygen, and silicon.
Table 1 of Exhibit Ko 4 discloses …a value within the numerical range of Invention 1, but the table does not show film properties or indicate that this Si/C ratio is superior to other parts-by-mass values outside the range of Invention 1. It therefore cannot be said that a person skilled in the art would focus on that value. Moreover, merely because Exhibit Ko 4—which has no more in common with Exhibit Ko 3 than being “an invention concerning a layered structure”—describes examining numerical ranges using “Si/C,” it cannot be said that a person skilled in the art could readily have adopted the configurations relating to Differences 1-2 and 1-3 by referring to Exhibit Ko 4.
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The author’s summary names the extracted pair as carbon and oxygen, while the quoted reasoning discusses carbon and silicon. Both statements are preserved.
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.
