Abstract:

We have previously developed a learning support system for intellectual property law that utilizes the fact that legal statements can be represented using propositional logic and first-order predicate logic. The developed system provides learners with feedback about their mistakes by finding the difference between the logical structure of the correct answer and the logical structure that the learner has entered. The system has been highly evaluated for facilitating learning by engineering students, who tend to be good at logical thinking. A logical structure is used for the internal control of the system and learners are aware of this as they enter their answers. However, the user interface was difficult to use as it involves using a dropdown list to enter logical operators such as ∧, ∨, ∀, or ∃, and we received many suggestions that this area be improved. Accordingly, in this study we have developed a learning support system where students create structures for legal statements by themselves, using circuit symbols such as AND, OR, NAND, NOR or NOT rather than symbols such as ∧, ∨, ∀, or ∃. For example, in order for something to be patentable under the Patent Act, it must satisfy conditions such as being an invention under the Patent Act, being novel, having an inventive step, and not violating the public interest. In determining whether an invention is novel, it must not violate the patentability conditions in clauses (i) to (iii) of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act. However, even if an invention fails (iii) as a result of being described in a distributed publication for example, there is still a high probability that it is patentable if it falls under the exceptions in Article 30(1) or (2). This kind of decision can be written as a logical circuit by using a 3-input NOR gate to join the clauses of Article 29(1) followed by a 3-input OR gate connecting the NOR output, Article 30(1), and Article 30(2), so that the final value becomes “1” (patentable) if either Article 30(1) or Article 30(2) is met, even if the output of the NOR gate is “0” (not patentable). This allows the system to have the learner construct the circuit and to simulate what the output will be for the logical circuit that the student has actually created, thereby giving feedback as to whether the answer was correct and, if not, which part of the circuit contains the error. We found that if students had already taken a course in logical circuits such a system was extremely easy for them to use, and that the user interface was also very highly evaluated.

Keywords:

Intellectual Property Law, Learning Support System, Logical Circuits, Patent Act, First-Order Predicate Logic.