[등록무효(특)][미간행]
Cases of denying the inventive step of a patented invention under the name of "securities coefficient device and method capable of extracting serial numbers";
Article 29(2) of the Patent Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2005Hu3284 decided Sep. 6, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1582)
SB Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
C&T Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Patent Court Decision 2007Heo3110 decided Nov. 8, 2007
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In light of the record, the patented invention of this case (registration No. 48950) with the name “the securities coefficient device and method capable of extracting serial numbers” (registration No. 48950) is identical to the comparable invention 1, 2, and 3 with the technical field. Among the composition of the patented invention of this case, the remainder of the non-obviousness of the invention No. 3-5 is publicly announced pursuant to the comparable invention 1, 2, and 3 at the time of the original adjudication of the patented invention of this case. In light of the composition of the third-5 phase in the original adjudication of the patented invention of this case, it can be easily recognized that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the patented invention of this case belongs (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can be seen as a combination or combination of the patented invention 1, 2, and 3, the technological level at the time of the application of the patented invention of this case and the technological content of the comparable invention 1, 2, and etc., the invention can be easily inferred from the entire image model model model model model model.
2. Nevertheless, the court below held that the nonobviousness of the invention of this case and the invention of this case Nos. 3, 4, 5 inventions of this case, which are subordinate claims to the invention of this case, and Paragraph 6 inventions of this case and Paragraph 7, 9, 10 inventions of this case, which are subordinate claims to the invention of this case, are recognized as non-obviousness compared to the invention No. 1, 2, and 3 of this case, on the premise that the composition difficulty of the composition of the 3-5 phase composition of the 3-5 phase composition at the time of the original adjudication and the existence of the effects therefrom are obvious. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of non-obviousness of the patented invention, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)