Jakarta – The Patent Appeal Commission (Komisi Banding Paten, KBP) of the Republic of Indonesia rejected the appeal filed by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation against the refusal of Patent Application No. P00202007371, with the invention title Polyester Film for Dry Film Retainer (Film Poliester untuk Penahan Film Kering), at a hearing open to the public on Thursday, 13 August 2026 at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Building, Jakarta.

The Chairman of the Patent Appeal Panel, Mochamad Chalid, decided to reject Claim 1 through Claim 7 of that appeal. The rejection was based on the results of the substantive examination, which showed that those claims did not meet the patentability requirements as regulated in Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents.

"The Appeal Panel concludes that Claim 1 through Claim 7 of Appeal Application Registration No. 25/KBP/VIII/2025 against the Refusal of Patent Application No. P00202007371 are deemed not to meet the provisions referred to in Article 3, Article 5, Article 7, Article 8, and Article 25 paragraph (4) of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 13 of 2016 on Patents," said Chalid.

In the substantive examination, the Appeal Panel assessed the clarity, novelty, and inventive step of the seven claims filed. Claim 1 through Claim 4, Claim 6, and Claim 7 were deemed not to meet the requirements of novelty and/or inventive step. Meanwhile, Claim 5 was deemed unclear because there was a contradiction between the technical features claimed and the technical features in the claim to which it referred.

The Appeal Panel took into consideration comparison document D1, namely JP 2005-82784 A. Based on the examination, the features in Claim 1 through Claim 5 and Claim 7 were deemed to have been disclosed in that comparison document, so that they did not meet the element of novelty. As for Claim 6, it was deemed novel because it had a difference in the stretch ratio, but that difference could still be easily surmised by a person skilled in the art, so that it did not contain an inventive step.

"Based on the foregoing description, the claims of the invention in this application are not different from comparison document D1, JP 2005-82784 A, and are therefore deemed not novel. Because of the lack of novelty of the invention, Claim 1 through Claim 5 and Claim 7 do not contain an inventive step in relation to the disclosure of D1," said Chalid.

Based on those considerations, the Patent Appeal Panel decided to reject Claim 1 through Claim 7 of that appeal. The Panel also requested the Minister of Law of the Republic of Indonesia to record and announce the result of the decision through electronic and/or non-electronic media.

This decision underlines the importance of patent protection for inventors in order to provide legal certainty over the inventions they produce. Protection can be obtained by filing a patent application and ensuring that the invention meets the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.

Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI), Indonesia, 13 August 2026. Original: https://dgip.go.id/artikel/detail-artikel-berita/komisi-banding-paten-tolak-banding-mitsubishi-chemical