[Article / Patents] Double standards in inventive-step assessment (Hideki Takaishi, Patent, June 2024)
更新日：10月14日
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Display and classification checked: 2026-09-30
Categories: Patents
Topics: Inventive step / Design choices / Numerical limitations and parameters
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
[Article / Patents] Double standards in inventive-step assessment (Hideki Takaishi, Patent, June 2024)
The dividing line for a “design choice”
Whether the configuration constituting the difference correlates with the “problem addressed by the invention,” and whether its technical significance is disclosed in the specification, is the decisive boundary separating obviousness from non-obviousness.
For numerical-limit and parameter inventions, whether a difference is dismissed as a mere design choice or inventive step is recognized depends on how the numerical limitation or parameter contributes to “solving the problem of the invention.”
(1) Reasoning affirming inventive step: The problem is not publicly known, or the parameter strongly correlates with solving it.
IP High Court, Reiwa 2 (Gyo-Ke) 10044, […] (Otaka)
IP High Court, Heisei 31 (Gyo-Ke) 10011, […] (Takabe)
(2) Reasoning denying inventive step (design choice): The specification does not describe technical significance (correlation with the problem), and the choice is found to be one a skilled person can make as appropriate.
IP High Court, Reiwa 3 (Gyo-Ke) 10091, “Adhesive tape” (Honda)
IP High Court, Reiwa 4 (Gyo-Ke) 10111, “Vehicle door beltline molding” (Honda)
Inventive step can be strengthened by expressly describing in the original specification at filing not merely numerical ranges or parameters, but their technical significance (correlation): why they contribute to solving the invention’s problem.
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510493831570669568/
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.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: applied the Roman-letter personal-name spellings supplied by Hideki Takaishi to this English article and its navigation. No change to legal analysis or original publication date.
コメント