Requirements for Unity of Application - Japan Patent Office

itself, and its matters defining the invention are generally represented by the chemical
structure of the substance. Therefore, the substantial parts of the matters defining the two
inventions of chemical substances would be the same, if the novel basic structure in the
chemical structures of the chemical substances is in common. Also, for inventions of
chemical substances whose novel basic structures are not considered the same, the
substantial part of the matters defining the invention would still be deemed the same if the
chemical structures of the two substances are considered to be technically closely related
with each other (e.g. chain and ring compounds closed by method of ring closure commonly
used in synthesizing ring compounds).
In the present example, the industrial fields of application are the same, since the
utility of chemical substances of the two inventions is in common in that they both possess
herbicidal property.
Also, the two substances have the same substantial parts of indispensable constituent
features, since they share a common novel basic structure (X).
The two inventions therefore satisfy the conditions prescribed under Patent Law
section 37(ii).
(Example 3)
Specified invention:
Polymeric compound A identified by the following general formula wherein unit (X) is
repeated: (useful as fiber material)
Related invention:
Compound B identified by the following general formula wherein unit (X) is repeated: (useful
as intermediate for polymer compound A)
(initial condensation product)
The two inventions relate to so-called intermediate and final chemical product. An
intermediate is a substance which is useful as raw material for the final product, and belongs
to the technical field of "substance for producing another substance having specific utility."
The substantial part of the matters defining the intermediate is grasped as mentioned in
example 2, since an invention of intermediate is also an invention of chemical substance.
In the present example, application of technology in the field of substance B to the
field of substance A is considered to be quite appropriate, since the principal use for
substance B is found in being raw material for substance A. The industrial fields of
application are therefore considered the same.
Meanwhile, the matters defining the two substances also are the same, as they share
a common novel basic structure (repeating unit (x)).
The two inventions therefore satisfy the conditions prescribed under Patent Law
section 37(ii).
10