「found art」に関連した英語例文の一覧と使い方(2ページ目) - Weblio英語例文検索

In other words, the range hood 1 accompanying the wall panel 2 is realized, and the range hood 1 and the wall panel 2 are formed as a unit, whereby both present an identical metal color with their configurations integrated each other to ensure an up-to-date range hood and its surrounding structure not found in prior art.例文帳に追加

言い換えれば壁パネル２を付随させたレンジフード１となり、これらレンジフード１と壁パネル２とが一体的なユニットとなることにより、両者が同様の金属色を呈して互いに形態がとけ込み、従来にない斬新なレンジフードとその周辺構造を形成できる。 - 特許庁

To provide a write-once type optical recording medium, on which additional elements and physical properties fully allowing to secure record reproducing characteristics and reliability and having not found out by the prior art of an own company are searched for more excellent characteristics about a recording layer having bismuth as the major component of constituent elements and including bismuth oxide.例文帳に追加

構成元素の主成分がビスマスであり、かつ酸化ビスマスを含有する記録層について、記録再生特性、信頼性を十分確保することができる、自社先行技術では見出されていなかった添加元素及び物性を探索し、特性の優れた追記型光記録媒体を提供すること。 - 特許庁

To provide a transfer carrier capable of supplying continuously a relative large-sized actual installed component to an automatic assembling machine in the same manner as that for a carrier tape, not occupying any storing space and further resolving a certain limitation on a storing amount when the carrier is taken up onto a reel as found in the prior art carrier tape.例文帳に追加

本発明は、比較的大型の実装部品をキャリアテープと同様に、連続して自動組立機に供給できると共に、収納スペースを取らず、従来のキャリアテープのようにリールに巻き取る場合の収納数量の制限を解決できる搬送キャリアを提供する。 - 特許庁

A decision to reject registration shall be taken if, as a result of the examination, registration is found inadmissible and, within the term under Art. 23(2), the applicant: fails to respond; makes an ill-founded objection; fails to produce evidence of acquired distinctness under Art 11(2) of the Law on Marks and Geographical Indications; fails to furnish the consent of the relevant competent authority under Art 11(3) of the Law on Marks and Geographical Indications; does not renounce the exclusive right in an element under Art. 37(3) of the Law on Marks and Geographical Indications; does not furnish the consent of the holder of the prior mark under Art. 12(4) of the Law on Marks and Geographical Indications; does not restrict the list of goods and/or services. 例文帳に追加

審査の結果，登録は許容し得ないと認められ，かつ，第23条(2)に基づく期間内に出願人が次の場合に該当するときは，登録拒絶の決定を行う。応答しない場合，正当な理由のない反論をする場合，商標法第11条(2)に基づく取得された識別性の証拠を示さない場合，商標法第11条(3)に基づく関連所轄当局の承諾を提示しない場合，商標法第37条(3)に基づく構成要素に対する排他権を放棄しない場合，商標法第12条(4)に基づく先の標章の所有者の同意を提示しない場合，商品及び／又はサービスの一覧を限定しない場合。 - 特許庁

In a case where no numerical limitation is found in the cited invention while new numerical limitation is included in a claimed invention, the invention is regarded as novel. However, if the numerical limitation can be arbitrary chosen by a person skilled in the art or it can be hinted in a cited invention in view of the common technical knowledge at the time of filing, novelty of the invention is denied in general. 例文帳に追加

引用発明に数値限定がなく、請求項に記載された発明に新たな数値限定が含まれる場合には、新規性が認められるが、出願時に当業者が数値限定事項を任意的に選択できる場合、又は技術常識を参酌したときに数値限定事項が引用発明に暗示されていると見られる場合には、新規性が原則として否定される。 - 特許庁

In the above-described (1) to (3), the invention according to the claim of the earlier application is not stated so that a person skilled in the art may evidently produce the product (in the case of a product invention) based on the description or drawings of the earlier application as well as the common general knowledge at the filing date of the earlier application, and he/she may use the method in the case of a method invention, the invention cannot be found as “the earlier application invention.” 例文帳に追加

上記(1)から(3)においては、先願の請求項に係る発明が、当業者が、先願の明細書及び図面の記載並びに先願の出願時の技術常識に基づいて、物の発明のときはその物を作れ、方法の発明のときはその方法を使用できることが明らかであるように記載されていないときは、その発明を「先願発明」とすることができない。 - 特許庁

As to at least one of the chemical substance groups expressed by alternatives disclosed in claims including the chemical substances disclosed as embodiments (a group of chemical substances expressed by specified alternatives corresponding to embodiments), at least one prior art document denying its novelty etc. has been found. 例文帳に追加

請求項に記載された選択肢によって表現される化学物質群であって、実施例として記載された化学物質を含むもの(実施例に対応する特定の選択肢で表現された化学物質群)の少なくとも1つについて、その新規性等を否定する先行技術文献等を、少なくとも1つ既に発見しているとき。 - 特許庁

All chemical substance groups expressed by specified alternatives corresponding to the aforementioned embodiments have already been searched, and at least one prior art denying novelty etc. of the claimed invention has been found by the search of the chemical substance groups expressed by those other than the aforementioned alternatives. 例文帳に追加

上記実施例に対応する特定の選択肢で表現された化学物質群のすべてについて既に調査を行っており、かつ、それ以外の選択肢で表現される化学物質群についての調査によって、請求項に係る発明の新規性等を否定する先行技術文献等を、少なくとも1 つ既に発見しているとき。 - 特許庁

In addition, in the operation of the Ministerial Ordinance under Article 36 (4) (i), if the problem to be solved is found not to have been inherently presumed, as is the case with regard to an invention developed based on a novel conception totally different from the prior art or an invention based on a discovery as a result of trial and error, it is not required that the problem be stated. 例文帳に追加

なお、第36 条第4 項第1 号の委任省令の運用では、従来の技術と全く異なる新規な発想に基づき開発された発明又は試行錯誤の結果の発見に基づく発明等のように、もともと解決すべき課題が想定されていないと認められる場合には、課題の記載は求めない。 - 特許庁

A Musashi's biography "Niten-ki," written by Kagehide TOYOTA, an instructor of Niten Ichi-ryu Heiho in the Matsui family, describes many fights including a fight with Nichiei OKUZOIN, a master of Hozoin-ryu School of So-jutsu (art of spear) from Nara of Yamato Province, a fight with Shishido, a master of kusarigama (chained scythes) from Iga Province, fights with Hayato OSETO and Samanosuke TSUJIKAZE, masters of Yagyu Shinkage-ryu School from Edo; however, the information on those fights is not found in "Buko-den" on which Kagehide based, and there is no material to support the tales as well, therefore, presumably, those fights are not historical facts. 例文帳に追加

松井家の二天一流師範である豊田景英が著した武蔵の伝記『二天記』には、大和国・奈良の宝蔵院流槍術の使い手奥蔵院日栄、伊賀国の鎖鎌の使い手宍戸某、江戸の柳生新陰流の大瀬戸隼人と辻風左馬助等との試合を記しているが、『二天記』の原史料である『武公伝』に記載が無く、また、他にそれを裏付ける史料が無いことから史的事実ではないと考えられている。 - Wikipedia日英京都関連文書対訳コーパス

Moreover, if an invention or a device is not stated in the originally attached description, etc. of this other application such that a person skilled in the art may evidently manufacture the product in case of a product invention, or may use the method in case of a method invention based on the statement of the originally attached description, etc. of another application or general technical knowledge at the filing date of another application, the said invention or device cannot be found as “an invention or a device stated in the originally attached description, etc. of another application.” 例文帳に追加

また、ある発明又は考案が、当業者が当該他の出願の当初明細書等の記載及び他の出願の出願時における技術常識に基づいて、物の発明の場合はその物を作れ、また方法の発明の場合はその方法を使用できることが明らかであるように当該他の出願の当初明細書等に記載されていないときは、当該発明又は考案を「他の出願の当初明細書等に記載された発明又は考案」とすることができない。 - 特許庁

In cases where the above mentioned "logical explanation" is based on publicly known knowledge of the preserved regions within the factor WW1 gene, it would be easy, on the other hand, for the person skilled in the art to obtain a nucleotide encoding "factor WW1" by constructing a DNA primer probe based on the DNA sequence of the preserved regions, and using the primer probe in methods such as PCR. Under these circumstances, unless it is found that the polynucleotide has unexpected advantageous effects, claim 1 lacks inventive step. 例文帳に追加

上記の理論的な説明が、本願出願前に公知の保存領域に関する知見に基づく場合は、該保存領域のＤＮＡ配列に基づいて調製したＤＮＡプライマーを用いたＰＣＲ法等により、「ＷＷ1因子」をコードするポリヌクレオチドを当業者が容易に取得でき、かつ、該ポリヌクレオチドが予測しえない有利な効果を奏さないと判断された場合には、請求項1に係る発明の進歩性が欠如する旨の拒絶理由が存在することになる。 - 特許庁

In the case of a divisional or converted application, prior art search should be conducted based on the actual filing date. In principle, only when distributed publications etc. or applications for a patent or utility model registration having earlier filing dates, which can deny novelty etc. of claimed devices, are found between the original filing date and the actual filing date, whether or not these applications satisfy the requirements for a divisional and converted application should be determined according to the guidelines in “Part V, Chapter 1, Division of Application” and “Chapter 2, Conversion of Application.” 例文帳に追加

分割・変更出願の場合は、現実の出願日を基準として先行技術調査を行い、基本的に原出願日と現実の出願日との間に新規性等を否定する頒布された刊行物等又は出願された先願特許・実用新案登録出願があった場合のみ、出願が分割・変更要件を満たしているか否かについて、原則「第Ⅴ部第1章 出願の分割」及び「第Ⅴ部第2章 出願の変更」に準じて判断する。 - 特許庁

In the case of an application which claims internal priority and/or priority under the Paris Convention, prior art search must be conducted on the actual filing date. In principle, only when distributed publications or prior applications for a patent or a utility model registration, which can deny novelty etc. of claimed devices, are found between the priority date and the filing date, whether or not the claimed priority for the devices takes effect should be determined in the same way as described in “Chapter IV Priority.” 例文帳に追加

国内優先権・パリ条約による優先権を主張する出願の場合は、出願日を基準として先行技術調査を行い、基本的に優先日と出願日との間に新規性等を否定する頒布された刊行物等又は出願された先願特許・実用新案登録出願があった場合のみ、評価対象となる請求項に係る考案について、優先権主張の効果が認められるか否かを、「第Ⅳ部 優先権」と同様に判断する。 - 特許庁

As mentioned above, in regards to the above difference, both upper and lower thickness limits of the polyethylene resin layer in the claimed invention are only an appropriately defined number that represents a matter of design in the earlier application invention to be appropriately selected by a person skilled in the art. And, as any specific technical meaning or critical importance cannot be found in the definition of the thickness, the claimed invention is substantially identical with the invention stated in the earlier application description. 例文帳に追加

以上によれば、上記相違点について、請求項に係る発明におけるポリエチレン樹脂層の厚さの限定は、その上限、下限とも、先行技術が実施者の適宜の選択にゆだねていた設計的事項について適宜数値を特定してみたものにすぎず、その限定に格別の技術的意義ないし臨界的意義を見いだすことができないから、請求項に係る発明は、先行技術と実質的に同一である。 - 特許庁

On the assumption that an invention claimed in the application concerned is the invention that was amended in response to the notice of reasons for refusal indicating lack of inventive step to the other patent application, if the invention claimed in the application concerned is unable to bring about a new effect because it is made merely by adding wellknown art or commonly used art to the invention claimed in the other patent application, and is therefore found to be unable to overcome the lack of inventive step, the reason for refusal of the application concerned arising from the lack of inventive step based on the same reference document is the same as that stated in the notice given to the other patent application. 例文帳に追加

本願に係る発明を、他の特許出願の進歩性欠如の拒絶の理由を含む拒絶理由通知に対する補正後の発明であると仮定した場合において、本願に係る発明が他の特許出願に係る発明に周知・慣用技術を付加したものであって、新たな効果を奏するものではないため、当該進歩性欠如の拒絶の理由を解消していないと判断される場合には、本願についてこのような判断の下に通知しようとする同一の引用文献に基づく同旨の進歩性欠如の拒絶の理由は、当該他の特許出願の拒絶理由通知に係る拒絶の理由と同一である。 - 特許庁

The reasons for this follow; in the Edo period Tsunayoshi TOKUGAWA prohibited hunting and the possession of a gun by farmers in principle; that the transfer of a gun was limited; that, commonly believed, the technological advance of guns stagnated from the influence of the exclusion of foreigners (national isolation); that a flintlock gun (flintlock system) had a stronger spring than a hinawaju and when the gunlock operating the impact was big and after trigger was pulled, the ignition mechanism for the explosive charge momentarily wavered and the accuracy of fire was bad and thus Japanese who liked to 'ippatsu hicchu' (hit with one shot), disliked the flintlock gun; that good quality flints could not be found in Japan and could not be mass-produced; and that, as a big factor, the art of gun was inherited probably in the form of a school-style gun for competitions like all the martial arts and as a result, the improvement of the weapon was necessarily avoided. 例文帳に追加

その理由として、江戸時代に入って徳川綱吉によって諸国鉄砲改めによる百姓の狩猟及び銃の原則所持禁止、銃器の移動制限がなされたことや、鎖国の影響による技術進歩の停滞という通説、フリントロック式は火縄式に比べ強力なバネが装着されており、撃鉄作動時の衝撃が大きく、引金を引いてから一瞬遅れて装薬に着火する機構のため銃身がぶれ、火縄銃に比べ命中率が悪く「一発必中」を好む日本人から嫌われたらしいことのほかに、日本では良質の火打石が産出せず大量生産ができなかったこと、またおそらくはすべての武術と同じく鉄炮術も一種の競技的な要素を含んで流派形式で継承されたため、その結果必然的に器具類の改変は避けられた、という要素も大きかった。 - Wikipedia日英京都関連文書対訳コーパス