TOPICS

“Robot, Program and Method”
Overview:
The present invention relates to a robot that autonomously selects actions according to an internal state or an external environment, and is characterized in that control is performed to vibrate a pupil region around an axis point while moving the axis point in a wave-like manner in an eye image displayed on a display device. This is a case in which the Intellectual Property High Court upheld a trial decision that denied inventive step on the grounds that the present invention could have been easily conceived by applying the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 to the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, taking into consideration a well-known matter (the human eye movement of “fixational eye movement”).
▶Summary of Judgement and Link to Full Text (Japanese)
Main Issue:
Whether a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of the configuration of the present invention according to Difference 1 (a configuration of vibrating a pupil region around an axis point while moving the axis point in a wave-like manner in an eye image) by applying the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 concerning a robot’s eye having a structure different therefrom, taking into consideration the well-known matter regarding human eyeballs.
Summary:
According to Cited Reference 1, the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 relates to a robot provided with…artificial eyes that resemble living organisms to enhance familiarity, and aims to provide artificial eyes capable of expressing highly realistic emotions and a robot using the same to achieve a cute and friendly robot capable of better communication. In order to solve this problem, the robot is provided with artificial eyes that are as similar as possible to the eyes of living organisms, or pattern displays for expressing emotions are presented on the artificial eyes.
Further, …the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 relates to an eye of a robot without a drive mechanism, which expresses friendly eyes by enabling high-speed eye movement through projecting eyes with a projector in order to express human-like high-speed eye movements (saccades and fixational eye movements), and “human-like high-speed eye movement” is recognized as including “fixational eye movement”, which is the well-known matter.
Accordingly, since the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 and the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 share common problems and technical concepts, there is a motivation to apply the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 to the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, and it can be said that a person skilled in the art could have easily arrived at the configuration of the present invention according to Difference 1 by taking into consideration fixational eye movement, which is the well-known matter, when applying the invention of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.
Comments:
In the present case, the plaintiff argued that the skilled person could not have easily conceived of applying “fixational eye movement”, a movement characteristic of human eyeballs, to the eyes of a robot, on the grounds that the “uncanny valley” phenomenon (where making a robot too similar to a human instead creates a sense of eeriness) was common general knowledge as of the priority date of the present application.
In response, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, pointing out that (1) there is no indication in the evidence of this case that applying fixational eye movement to the eyes of a robot causes an eerie feeling, and (2) on the contrary, according to the specification of the present application, etc., it can be understood that “by causing a movement similar to fixational eye movement, the robot’s sense of being a living organism is further enhanced, thereby achieving a suitable control method when the robot stares at a user, which is the main objective of the present invention”.
It can be said that the above determinations (1) and (2) were grounded on the facts that there was no evidence supporting the “uncanny valley” relied upon by the plaintiff, and that, on the contrary, the plaintiff’s own specification described advantageous effects resulting from the application of fixational eye movement.

Yuji WADA