[실용신안등록무효][공1989.3.15.(844),350]
A. Criteria for determining similarity of a utility model
B. Criteria for determining the scope of rights of registered utility models
(a) In determining whether a registered utility model is identical with or similar to the prior application application, a comparative study should be conducted by taking into account not only the technical device related to the type, structure, or combination of each product, but also the effects of the device such as its use value and purpose of use;
(b) The scope of rights to the professional engineer of a registered utility model shall be examined on the basis of the requests for registration in light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides that the scope of requests for registration shall be specified in the application for registration of the
(a) Article 7 of the Utility Model Act;
(b) Supreme Court Decision 86Hu22 delivered on December 9, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Hu68 delivered on January 19, 1988
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Patent Attorney White-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant
Patent Attorney Lee Ji-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant
Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 86Na253 dated January 30, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.
With respect to the ground of appeal by the respondent,
In determining whether a registered utility model is identical with or similar to a prior application application, the comparison should be made by comprehensively considering not only the technical device related to the type, structure, or combination of each product, but also the utility model such as the use value and purpose of the device (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu22 delivered on December 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 87Hu68 delivered on January 19, 198).
Compared with the original adjudication records, this registered idea is more likely to be used only once because it is divided into separate machines, and it is not only less than 1 but also 1strings and crushing devices in one gas, and it is necessary to install cutting and crushing devices (2) which puts pharmaceutical materials into the upper part of the gas, and adjust the distance between 1strings (3) and 1strings (5) which are connected to the upper part of the 6th unit (7th unit), and the effect of which is less than 1strings (5th unit) of which is less than 1strings (5th unit) and the upper part of which is less than 1strings (10th unit) and which are not 1strings (10th unit) of which is less than 1strings (6th unit) and which is not 1strings (89th unit) of which is not 2ndings of the upper part) and which is not 1strings of the upper part (6th unit).
In addition, the scope of the right to a professional engineer of a registered utility model shall be examined on the basis of the scope of the request for registration in light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides that the scope of the request for registration shall be specified in the application for registration of a utility model (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu22, Dec. 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 87Hu68, Jan. 19, 198). Thus, the court below held that the closing and closing board (11) of the judgment of the court below is not included in the scope of the request for registration in this case, and it cannot be deemed a summary of the registered utility model in this case as it is, just and there is no error of incomplete deliberation
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 on the bench.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)