The method of determining inventive step and the standard for determining inventive step of a patented invention by citing various prior art documents where a claim described in the scope of a patent application contains multiple elements
 The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that the nonobviousness of the corrective invention under Paragraph (1) of the claim for patent of the patent invention with the name of "Myan Supply System
 Article 29(2) of the Patent Act /  Article 29(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001)
 Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284 decided September 6, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1582)
Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Shin Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellant] M201 J. B.D. (Attorney Park Ho-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2059 Decided July 10, 2008
Patent Court Decision 2008Heo8792 Decided May 21, 2009
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In a case where a claim described in the scope of a patent application for a patented invention consists of multiple elements, it is not the object of the inventive step determination as a whole, and each element is not the object of the inventive step determination independently. Thus, in determining the inventive step of the patented invention, the determination of inventive step of the patented invention should only be based on whether multiple components listed in the claim are dissatisfyed and dissatisfyed separately, and the difficulty of forming a group as a whole, which is an organic combination based on the principle of resolving particular tasks should be considered. In addition, in determining the inventive step of the patented invention by citing various prior art literature, the special effects of the invention as a whole should also be taken into consideration if the cited technology is presented in the prior art literature, the motive, etc. that the patented invention can be described in the patented invention, or if not, in light of the technological level, technological common sense, basic task at the time of the application for the patented invention, development trend, demand of the relevant industry, etc., the person who has ordinary knowledge in the art can easily be seen (hereinafter referred to as 200.).
2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, each of the elements of the Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) of the instant patent invention (patent number No. 218069) with the name “a Myanmar supply device”) after remanding the instant patent invention (patent number No. 218069) and the lawsuit in the lower court is deemed to constitute prior art including comparable invention No. 1 and No. 4 as indicated in the lower judgment, or widely known and used art.
Examining the complexity of composition as a whole of the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, which combines or combines such publicly known composition, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, where three elements of the correction as indicated in the judgment of the court below are added, is supported by bending only the part in which a bending roll (13' 13' ; 14' ; 14' ; 14') protruding out to the outside of bending, and the two parts are not supported by bending. As such, the imbalance of power and the malfunction of roller, which caused a problem that smooth supply of Myanmar, may occur. The amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is flexible when 8 elements of the judgment of the court below are combined in order to solve this problem.
However, the comparison invention 1 differs from the correction invention of the instant Claim 1 in that both parts of rollers (13,14) supporting and revolving the open space are laid in presses (10). However, as long as rollers (13,14) are being fluord by a open space, there is room for string problems of rollers such as strawer in the correction invention of the instant Claim 1 even if there is a difference in the degree, in the art to which the instant patented invention pertains, and in addition, even if rollers support only one of the rollers by bling, it is known that the specification of the instant patented invention was already published in the German Patent specification (D 3233869 C2) stated in the previous technology, and it is difficult for a person with ordinary skills to find it difficult for him/her to form a large number of 9 he/sheether equipment in the direction of supply from the prior inventions 1 or in the specification of the instant patented invention to solve the problem of greping in the direction of the instant invention 4.
Therefore, in light of the fact that the bending technology belonging to the comparable invention 4 is generally used in the field of technology using machinery and equipment that supports the whole of rollers, it shall be deemed that, in the case of an ordinary engineer in the field of textile machinery that belongs to the instant patented invention, which belongs to the instant patented invention as to the Myanmar 1 or the specification of the instant patented invention, the composition that gives carbon to the bending roller, which is conducted in the comparable invention 4, can be easily combined with the foregoing, in order to solve the string problem of the bendr based on the prior invention described in the comparable invention 1 or the specification of the instant patented invention.
On the other hand, the corrective invention of Paragraph 1 of this case can be said to have the effect of smoothly supplying Myanmar by accepting the soft rollers in the Myanmar supply device by combining its elements. However, such effect is difficult to be deemed to be a significant effect that exceeds the outcome predicted from the combination of each of the above elements.
Ultimately, even though the inventive step of the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is denied, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the inventive step of the patented invention, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that it is difficult to deem that there is any motive or necessity to combine the composition of the comparable invention 1 fixed by a person with ordinary skills, which flexibly forms part of a bend (10) or the prior invention indicated in the specification of the patented invention of this case, with the structure of the comparable invention 4, which flexibly forms a part of a bend (10). The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the inventive step of the patented invention. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.
3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)
-  특허법 제29조 제2항 (위헌조문)
-  특허법(구) 제29조 제2항