[*]Associate Professor of Law, Director, Center for Advanced Study and Research on Intellectual Property (CASRIP) and Intellectual Property and Technology LL.M., University of Washington School of Law.

[1] Japanese Patent Law, Art. 2, ¶ 2.

[2] Id.

[3] Japanese Patent Office, Examination Guidelines for Computer Program No. 1 (1975); Japanese Patent Office, Examination Administrative Directions for Micro-computer Application Technology Related Inventions (1982); Japanese Patent Office, Draft Examination Proposal for Computer Software Related Inventions (1988).

[4] Japanese Patent Office, Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan VIII 3 (1993) [hereinafter 1993 JPO Guidelines].

[5] In re Alappt, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

[6] State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

[7] 1993 JPO Guidelines, supra note 4, at 23 ex. 4.

[8] Japanese Patent Office, Implementation Guidelines for Software Related Inventions ex. 4 (1997).

[9] Convention on the Grant of European Patents, Oct. 5, 1973, 13 I.L.M. 268 (as amended Dec. 21, 1978) [hereinafter European Patent Convention].

[10] European Patent Convention, Art. 52, ¶ 2.

[11] Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

[12] John Thomas, The Patentability of the Liberal Professions, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 1139, 1161 (1999).

[13] Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Industry Structure Comm. Information Industry Subcomm., Preliminary Proposal, Dec. 1983, reprinted in Nobuhiro Nakayama, Legal Protection of Software 214 app. 2 (1988).

[14] Nakayama, supra note 13, at 222-24.

[15] Nakayama, supra note 13, at 12-13.

[16] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, Apr. 15, 1994, 108 Stat. 4809, 4811-4828, 33 I.L.M. 81, 83-111 [hereinafter TRIPS].

[17] European Patent Convention, art. 56.

[18] For a general discussion on the inventive step see Hanns Ulrich, Standard of Patentability for European Inventions: Should an Inventive Step Advance the Art? (1977).

[19] EPC Examination Guidelines, C-IV, 9, available at http:www.european-patent-office.org; JPO Patent and Utility Model Examination Guidelines, II-2, available at http://www.jpo-miti.go.jp.

[20] TRIPS, art. 27, ¶ 1.

[21] In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

[22] Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (W.D. Wash. 1999), vacated by 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

[23] EPC Guidelines, supra note 19; JPO Guidelines, supra note 19.

[24] G. Knesch, Assessing Inventive Step in Examination and Opposition Proceedings, 3 EPI Information 95 (1994).

[25] Such an analysis should be rejected as using hindsight. For example, see T229/85, 1987 Official Journal of European Patent Office 237.

[26] EPO Guidelines, supra note 19, at C-IV, 9.6; JPO Guidelines, supra note 19, at II-2, 2.2.