[등록무효(특)][미간행]
The case holding that the non-obviousness of a patent invention claim, the name of a "semiconductor test device and the test panel used in semiconductor test device", is denied in cases of combining comparable invention 1-4 with comparable inventions 2-2 or comparable inventions 4, which have a whole composition, and which can easily be claimed by combining comparable inventions 1-4.
Article 29(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001)
Plaintiff (Law Firm Dan, Patent Attorney Lee Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Patent Court Decision 2006Heo3298 Decided February 1, 2007
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
In light of the records, claims of the patented invention of this case (patent No. 312093) using the name “syplates used for semiconductor devices and their test devices” are not different from the overall composition of comparable invention 1-4 as indicated in the judgment below. However, in comparable inventions 1-4, the combinations between teplates, the characteristic constituent elements of the patented invention of this case, and the temperature stress assignment methods limited to multiple or optical routes, and the combined relationship between teplates installed in semiconductor testing devices of the patented invention of this case, and the detailed shape of the teplates installed in the semiconductor testing devices of the patented invention of this case, but the combinations between teplates limited to some dependent claims 4, and the detailed shape of the teplate installed in the semiconductor test devices of the patented invention of this case.
On the other hand, since comparable invention 2-2 as indicated in the holding of the court below could not increase the test of the previous technology, there are problems in which the time necessary for the test is long and when the test is less than time necessary for the test, problems are pointed out by the entire system processing capacity of the system, and where the return route of the test panel in the test part is more or more than a single channel, a test can be conducted every hour more than a multiple channel or broad channel than a single one, and where the return route of the test panel from the oar to the oar part can be treated more than a multiple channel or broad channel than a semiconductor to the oar part, so it is obvious for an ordinary technician to have a longer time from the ostar to the ostar part of the semiconductor return method than a single channel to the ostar part, so if the normal engineer becomes aware of the problem and solution method appearing in comparable invention 2-2, the more time from the ostar to the ostar part of the stress test to the outer test.
Therefore, the claim of the patented invention of this case is justified in holding that the nonobviousness of the patented invention of this case can be denied in a combination of comparable inventions 2-2 or the comparable inventions 4 with comparable inventions 1-4, which have a whole composition. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of the patented invention, incomplete deliberation, and lack of reasoning, and the defendant's ground of appeal cannot be accepted since it criticizes the court below from its independent opinion.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)