{"created":"2025-03-26T01:49:00.202607+00:00","id":2000259,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"6e3070d9-4ff8-4674-98bd-7a8aa62bede5"},"_deposit":{"created_by":16,"id":"2000259","owner":"16","owners":[16],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"2000259"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:jissen.repo.nii.ac.jp:02000259","sets":["4:7:1742886643908"]},"author_link":[],"control_number":"2000259","item_10002_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"bibliographic_information","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2025-03-31","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicPageEnd":"74","bibliographicPageStart":"57","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"21","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"実践女子大学人間社会学部紀要","bibliographic_titleLang":"ja"},{"bibliographic_title":"Jissen Women's University Studies of Humanities and Social Sciences","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_10002_description_5":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"特許法における内在的同一の問題に関しては新規性欠如とする立場と新規性具備とする立場の両方の見解が対立していた。本稿は、新規性具備という結論を導くための立論が、引用発明の認定について本件発明の出願日における当業者の認識可能性を要求し事後的証拠を排除する当業者認識要求説と、クレームに記載されていない何らかの思想の相違を理由とする思想同一要求説の二つのアプローチに整理できること、さらには両者の関係を示した。他方、本稿はいずれの見解に対しても否定的であり、内在的同一の場面においては一律に新規性欠如という結論を妥当とする。また、裁判例には内在的同一の場合に新規性具備の結論を導いたものが散見されるところ、いずれも例外的な場面であり、パブリックドメインの浸食は生じていないと説明し得ることを見出した。","subitem_description_language":"ja","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"},{"subitem_description":"Regarding the issue of inherent disclosure in patent law, there have been two conflicting views: that such disclosure causes lack of novelty, and that novelty is maintained despite such disclosure. This article categorizes the arguments for reaching the conclusion that novelty is maintained into two approaches: the \"awareness requirement theory,\" which demands the recognition of the cited invention by a person skilled in the art as of the filing date of the present invention and excludes ex post facto evidence, and the \"identical idea requirement theory,\" which concludes the maintenance of novelty by reason of some differences in ideas not described in the claims. Furthermore, this article clarifies the relationship between these two theories. Furthermore, this article clarifies the relationship between these two theories. On the other hand, this article takes a negative stance towards both views and concludes that in cases of inherent disclosure, a conclusion of lack of novelty is uniformly appropriate. Moreover, it has been found that, although there are judicial precedents where the conclusion of maintaining novelty was reached in cases of inherent disclosure, these are exceptional cases, and it can be explained that there has been no erosion of the public domain.","subitem_description_language":"en","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_10002_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"identifier_registration","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.34388/0002000259","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_10002_publisher_8":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"実践女子大学","subitem_publisher_language":"ja"}]},"item_10002_source_id_11":{"attribute_name":"item_10002_source_id_11","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AA12048098","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_10002_source_id_9":{"attribute_name":"item_10002_source_id_9","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"24323543","subitem_source_identifier_type":"EISSN"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorAffiliations":[{"affiliationNameIdentifiers":[{"affiliationNameIdentifier":"002v59719","affiliationNameIdentifierScheme":"ROR","affiliationNameIdentifierURI":"https://ror.org/002v59719"}],"affiliationNames":[{"affiliationName":"出光興産株式会社","affiliationNameLang":"ja"}]}],"creatorAlternatives":[{"creatorAlternative":"ABE, Mitsutoshi","creatorAlternativeLang":"en"}],"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"阿部, 光利","creatorNameLang":"ja","creatorNameType":"Personal"}],"creatorType":"creator","familyNames":[{"familyName":"阿部","familyNameLang":"ja"}],"givenNames":[{"givenName":"光利","givenNameLang":"ja"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"1530301861424858624","nameIdentifierScheme":"CiNii ID","nameIdentifierURI":"http://ci.nii.ac.jp/nrid/1530301861424858624"}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_access","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2025-04-11"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"人間社会21-6.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"433 KB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_11","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"objectType":"fulltext","url":"https://jissen.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2000259/files/人間社会21-6.pdf"},"version_id":"eb78593f-d047-4fcb-b9d1-e975bc65df36"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"item_resource_type","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"特許法における内在的同一の場合の新規性の判断　―物の発明あるいは物の発明特定事項を中心に―","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"特許法における内在的同一の場合の新規性の判断　―物の発明あるいは物の発明特定事項を中心に―","subitem_title_language":"ja"},{"subitem_title":"Determination of Novelty in situations with  Inherent Prior Disclosure in Patent Law --Focusing on Inventions of Products or Elements  of Products in Claims--","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"10002","owner":"16","path":["1742886643908"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2025-04-11"},"publish_date":"2025-04-11","publish_status":"0","recid":"2000259","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["特許法における内在的同一の場合の新規性の判断　―物の発明あるいは物の発明特定事項を中心に―"],"weko_creator_id":"16","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2025-04-03T03:53:01.360100+00:00"}