[United States] Sigray v. Carl Zeiss (CAFC, May 2025)
更新日：2 日前
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.
[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.
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.
