지적재산•법무관계 뉴스：일본 동경 소우에이국제특허법률사무소

 CAFC는 「인용 예를 조합함으로써 본 발명의 비자명성을 부정하기 위해서는, 해당 인용예에 구성 요건을 조합하는 교시, 시사, 동기(Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation：TSM)가 기재되어야 한다」라고 TSM 테스트를 엄격하게 적용한바 있습니다.

 그렇지만, 최고재판소는 「인용예에 TSM에 대한 기재가 없더라도 기술 상식이나 시장 요구등을 고려해 비자명성을 부정할 수 있다」라고 TSM 테스트를 유연하게 적용했습니다.

 구체적으로, 재판소는 이하의 4가지 포인트(판결문에서 발췌)에 대해 CAFC의 판단을 부정했습니다.

（１）The flaws in the Federal Circuit’s analysis relate mostly to its narrow conception of the obviousness inquiry consequent in its application of the TSM test. The Circuit first erred in holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patenteewas trying to solve. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reasonfor combining the elements in the manner claimed.

（２）Second, the appeals court erred in assuming that a person of ordinary skill in theart attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those prior artelements designed to solve the same problem. The court wronglyconcluded that because Asano’s primary purpose was solving the constant ratio problem, an inventor considering how to put a sensor on an adjustable pedal would have no reason to consider putting it on the Asano pedal. It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinaryskill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Regardless of Asano’s primary purpose, it provided an obvious example of an adjustable pedal with afixed pivot point, and the prior art was replete with patents indicating that such a point was an ideal mount for a sensor.

（３）Third, the court erred in concluding that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.

（４）Finally, the court drew thewrong conclusion from the risk of courts and patent examiners falling prey to hindsight bias. Rigid preventative rules that deny recourse to common sense are neither necessary under, nor consistent with, this Court’s case law. Pp. 15–18.

 상기 최고재판소 판결로 보아, 비자명성에 대한 판단이 향후 어려워질것으로 예상됩니다.
 즉, 미국의 비자명성 판단 기준이 일본과 유럽의 진보성의 기준에 가까워졌다고도 말할 수 것은 아닐까요?

 판결문에 대한 상세사항에 대해서는, 아래 URL을 참고해 주세요.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-1350.pdf

 이상