2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10059 [Glass] <Motoyoshi>
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Support requirement
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2024-12-02 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10059 [Glass] <Motoyoshi>
*A desirable numerical range was claimed.
⇒ The upper and lower limits need not match the specification's stated limits; the support requirement is satisfied if they fall within the disclosed range.
“It suffices that the upper and lower limits in the claim are values within the numerical range stated in the specification.”
*The problem of the invention, comprising physical-property and composition requirements, was identified as different from the physical-property requirements. The court therefore held it unnecessary that a substance meeting the composition requirements be likely to meet the physical-property requirements.
(*Distinguished from 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10189!!)
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
[Claim 1] …Glass that is an oxide glass having a liquidus temperature of 1140°C or lower, a glass-transition temperature of 672°C or higher, a refractive index nd of 1.825–1.850, and an Abbe number νd of 41.5–44
…The upper limit “0.828” in element A7) is below “0.85,” the most preferred upper limit in Table 2 of paragraph [0026] of the specification, and can therefore also be called a preferred upper limit…. Similarly, the upper limit “0.50” in element A(12) is below “0.6,” the most preferred upper limit in Table 22 of paragraph [0063], and can also be called a preferred upper limit…. The invention is found merely to claim a desirable numerical range from the range described in the specification. Thus, it cannot be said that the support requirement fails unless the claimed upper and lower limits match those in the specification; it is sufficient that the upper and lower limits are values within the disclosed numerical range. …
…If a person skilled in the art can understand that, based on the component-adjustment methods explained in the specification and starting with the reference examples, ordinary trial and error in the optical-glass field can lead to a concrete composition satisfying all elements of Invention 1, that invention falls within the scope recognized as capable of solving the problem in light of the detailed description's statements or suggestions, or common general technical knowledge at filing.
The plaintiff argues, among other things, that …some glasses meet the composition requirements but not the physical-property requirements, and that it is impossible to find a correlation between satisfaction of the two sets of requirements….
However, the invention's problems are …to reduce the proportions of Gd, Ta, and Yb in the glass composition, provide glass with excellent thermal stability, and provide glass suitable for machining, in order further to enhance the usefulness of high-refractive-index, low-dispersion glass. It seeks to solve these problems by adopting a configuration satisfying both the composition and physical-property requirements.
Accordingly, the composition and physical-property requirements cannot be said to stand in a problem-and-solution relationship. It is therefore unnecessary to recognize a relationship in which glass defined by the composition requirements is highly likely to satisfy all physical-property requirements, including glass-transition temperature. The invention claims glass satisfying both sets of requirements; it does not state that, throughout all numerical ranges of the composition requirements, any glass satisfying them also satisfies the physical-property requirements. Any glass satisfying the composition requirements but not the physical-property requirements is simply outside the claims. Moreover, considering the numerical ranges described as preferred in the specification and the reasons for their selection, the ranges of the composition requirements cannot be found excessively broad. …
(The plaintiff also argues that the criterion stated in another IP High Court judgment [Exhibit Ko 7] should govern support here: “A person skilled in the art must recognize, from the statements or suggestions in the detailed description or common general technical knowledge at filing, that the optical glass defined by the composition requirements is highly likely to satisfy the physical-property requirements.” However, compliance with the support requirement must be determined in relation to the invention's problem. That judgment identified the problem as “providing optical glass with specified optical constants, high refractive index and high dispersion, and a small partial-dispersion ratio.” It is inappropriate to apply unchanged to this case the reasoning given as a case-specific determination concerning a different problem in a different 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.
