News & Topics

On September 11, 2008, the Osaka district court issued a decision that the plaintiff’s utility model registration No. 2506321 was invalid because it would have been obvious at the time of invention to combine two prior art documents to reach the present utility model. The utility model is directed to the spindle of processing machine. Claim 1 included a limitation “cylindrical” member while the prior art disclosed a “circular truncated cone” element. The court stated that the term “cylindrical” includes “circular truncated cone” and that using “cylindrical” rather than “circular cylinder” implies that it intends to include not only “circular cylinder” but also other forms similar to the circular cylinder. Therefore, the “circular truncated cone” element corresponds to the “cylindrical” element of the present registration.