It's about granting patents by irrelevant and poor examination (search).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpnwpH1CTY2e6ae-Kg2OeclAFzO3AcbM/view?usp=drive_link
Patent infringement injunction request case from the viewpoint of case law.
Plaintiff's claim dismissal (plaintiff's rights invalid). It was declared "invalid" by the court, and it is the 46th case in total.
It is unclear whether the plaintiff, Computer System Technology Co., Ltd., which is the patentee, has verified the validity of the patent No. 4,827,120 (occupational safety and health management system, its method and program) owned by the plaintiff. is.
Nevertheless, he believed that the patent given by the Japan Patent Office was valid, and filed a complaint that he infringed the patents of the defendant Kibi System Co., Ltd. and others.
However, the court stated, "The invention lacks an inventive step because a person skilled in the art could easily invent the invention based on the invention described in Exhibit Otsu No. 5, and the patent relating to the present invention. The patent right relating to the Invention cannot be exercised because it is deemed to be invalidated by the trial for invalidation of the patent. "
As the basis for this, "Exhibit Otsu No. 5 Documents" (Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2001-350819) is cited as a prior art document.
This is a document that could not be found at the examination stage.
At the review stage, IPCC searchers present different documents to the examiner.
The examiner attaches two patent documents and one non-patent document to the "Notice of Reasons for Refusal".
I think there is a problem with not being able to find the document of "Otsu 5" presented at the trial.
I think it is only necessary for the IPCC searcher to find this "Exhibit Otsu 5 Documents".
I think that it is proof that the "search" performed under the guidance of the examiner of the JPO and the "search logical formula" in it are not created correctly.
Judgment should be made based on the prior art obtained by the creation of this inadequate and half-finished [search formula], and the patent should not be granted by patent decision.
Therefore, I think that the JPO should not have granted a patent to the application of Computer System Technology Co., Ltd.
By the way, this patent is partially invalidated by the "trial for invalidation".
As the “administration” (the Patent Office), we should humbly reflect on the fact that the “judicial” (the court) pointed out the error, and should try to correct the error.
In particular, the creation of the "search logic formula" that the examiner instructs the searchers of the registered search organization to create, or the "search logic formula" that is considered to be created by themselves should be fundamentally reformed. is.
In addition, on page 2 of the pdf document to be presented, a sample of "Prior Art Search" in "Basics of Patent Search" is posted.
Regarding the "technical subject" described in the [claims] and the "technical viewpoint" described in the "full text", they are (1) "technical terms and technical concepts", (2) "FI" and (3) "F". Identify the term.
Next, I will summarize what is associated with the "technical viewpoint" corresponding to the "technical subject".
And, as for the search formula, you have to create a mixed formula (hybrid formula) of "① + ② + ③" for each "same category".
（Google 翻译）
这是通过不相关且糟糕的审查（搜索）来授予专利。
从判例法的角度看专利侵权禁令请求案。
驳回原告的诉讼请求（原告的权利无效）。
被法院宣告“无效”，这已是第46起案件。
尚不清楚专利权人原告计算机系统技术有限公司是否验证了原告所拥有的第4,827,120号专利（职业安全健康管理系统及其方法和程序）的有效性。
是。 尽管如此，他仍认为日本专利局授予的专利有效，并提出了侵犯被告吉备系统株式会社等人专利的申诉。
然而，法院指出，“该发明缺乏创造性，因为本领域技术人员可以根据大津证据5中描述的发明以及与本发明相关的专利轻易地发明出该发明。
与本发明相关的专利权 该发明不能行使，因为该发明经专利无效宣告审理后被视为无效。
” 作为其基础，引用了“Exhibit Otsu No.5文献”(日本专利特开No.2001-350819)作为现有技术文献。
这是在审查阶段找不到的文件。 在审查阶段，IPCC检索员向审查员提交不同的文件。
审查员在《驳回理由通知书》中附有两份专利文件和一份非专利文件。
我认为无法找到庭审时出示的《大津5》的文件是有问题的。
我认为IPCC检索者只需找到这份“Exhibit Otsu 5 Documents”即可。
我认为这证明了在日本特许厅审查员的指导下进行的“检索”及其中的“检索逻辑公式”没有被正确创建。
应根据这种不充分、半成品的发明所获得的现有技术来进行判断，不应以专利决定的方式授予专利权。
因此，我认为日本特许厅不应该对Computer System Technology Co., Ltd.的申请授予专利。
顺便说一下，该专利已通过“无效宣告审判”部分宣告无效。
作为“行政部门”（专利局），我们应该虚心反思“司法部门”（法院）指出的错误，并努力纠正错误。
特别是，审查员指示注册检索组织的检索人创建的“检索逻辑公式”的创建，或者被认为是由其自己创建的“检索逻辑公式”的创建应该从根本上进行改革。 是。
此外，在将要呈现的pdf文档的第2页上，发布了“专利检索基础”中的“现有技术检索”样本。
关于[权利要求]中描述的“技术主题”和“全文”中描述的“技术观点”，它们是（1）“技术术语和技术概念”、（2）“FI”和（3）“ F”。
识别该术语。
接下来，我将总结一下与“技术主题”对应的“技术观点”的相关内容。
并且，对于搜索公式，您必须为每个“相同类别”创建“①+②+③”的混合公式（混合公式）。