[2] The case holding that even if the description of the challenged invention and the description of the elements other than the elements corresponding to the elements of the patented invention were written in detail, it cannot be deemed impossible to grasp the elements corresponding to the elements of the patented invention or to judge their differences, and thus, the invention in question was specified

[3] Where the invention in question, compared to the patented invention, has only a part of the essential elements specified in the claim(s) of the patented invention, whether the invention in question falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention(negative)

[4] Criteria for determining whether the challenged invention is equivalent to the patented invention

[5] The case holding that the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention, on the ground that the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention, on the ground that, although the invention in question and the elements of the patented invention are the same purpose, the solution principle and the effects of the task cannot be deemed identical, and the sacrif

[2] The case holding that even if the description of the challenged invention and the description of the elements other than the elements corresponding to the elements of the patented invention were written in detail, it cannot be deemed impossible to grasp or judge the elements corresponding to the elements of the patented invention, and therefore, the invention in question was specified.

[3] In a case where a claim within the scope of a patent claim within a patented invention contains multiple elements, each of the elements is deemed to be protected as a whole, and since each element is not protected independently, the invention in question compared to the patented invention has only a part of the essential elements specified in the claim within the scope of the patent claim within the patented invention, and the invention in question does not fall within the scope of the patent right within the scope of the patented invention in principle.

[4] The organic combination relationship between each element and each element of the patented invention is as is included in the challenged invention. However, even if the elements of the challenged invention are exchanged or changed, if the solution principle of the task in both inventions are identical, even if they are based on such substitution, if they are capable of achieving the same purpose as that in the patented invention, carry the same effect as that in the patented invention, and do so, and if they are so obvious to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily think about it, unless there are special circumstances such as where the challenged invention falls under the technology that could have easily been made by the party from the technology already publicly known at the time of the application of the patented invention or that the elements exchanged for the challenged invention through the procedure for the application of the patented invention are clearly excluded from the scope of the patent right of the patented invention, it shall be deemed that the exchanged element of the challenged invention has an equivalent relation with the elements corresponding to the patented invention, and thus, it still falls under the scope of the patent right of the patented invention.

[5] The case holding that the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention, on the ground that the invention in question is not in an equal relationship with both elements, although the invention in question and the elements of the patented invention are identical to some purposes, the solution principle and operational effects of the task cannot be deemed to be substantially identical, and that the substitution cannot be made to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily think about, and thus, the invention

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The process of the instant trial decision

A. The Plaintiff is the right holder of the instant patent invention with the following content.

(a) Name: Roter-type smoke; and

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: April 13, 1999/ October 22, 2001/313474

(3) The scope of claims: Reference to Attached Form 1. (see, e.g., Claim 1 invention of this case and Claim 2)

B. The defendant filed a claim with the Intellectual Property Tribunal to confirm the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case. The Intellectual Property Tribunal tried to confirm the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case. On August 30, 2003, the patented invention of this case was not publicly notified by the cited Invention indicated in Attached 3. However, due to the difference in functions and composition of finine (1) and measurement finine (14) of the patented invention of this case, the artificial tunnel pinine (P) and the air voltage (106) of the challenged invention of this case, both inventions are supplied to the main body to store finite (strip), and the method of supplying the patented invention of this case differs not only from inducement finine (12), guidance drum (19), external measuring method (25th) of the patented invention of this case, but also from which the defendant's trial decision of this case does not differ from each other.

[Evidence] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision by the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. Since the invention in question cannot be deemed to have been specified to the extent that it can be compared to the patented invention in this case, the defendant's appeal should have been dismissed.

(1) In the explanatory note of the challenged invention, the Defendant deemed the challenged invention to be different from the patented invention of this case by putting and putting together various parts attached to each of the above elements, as well as the elements compared to the patented invention of this case (102), which are non-related components to the patented invention of this case (106), public pressure dynamics (106), ethyls (104), apparatus operation parts (108), and other elements.

(2) The invention in question is identical to the device described in Gap evidence 7 and Gap evidence 9, which was sold by the defendant to the Han River corporation via the Han River corporation, and despite the fact that there was an external side divers, the defendant, while requesting the instant adjudication, made the invention in question to be seen as different from the patented invention.

B. The challenged invention and the patented invention of this case are identical to their purpose, composition, and effect as seen below. Thus, the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case.

(1) For purposes:

The purpose of both inventions is to secure the time to connect the line of the end of the major lecture used first with the major lecture to be newly used through the contact in the consecutive supply of the strings, which is the same as each other.

(2) in respect of composition and action effects:

① The composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention’s 1 invention’s revolving 18 in the opposite direction to see, and the composition of the instant Claim No. 1’s 1 invention’s revolving 17 in the Republic of Korea (17) and the outer part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time

(2) The artificial pin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-c

③ The inner side of the instant Claim No. 1 invention (23) and the outer side divers divershosis (25) are selective components that may be omitted in the event of a diversified divershying and divershing. Thus, even if the instant Claim No. 1 invention did not have such composition, it falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

(4) Although the invention subject to confirmation has additional ethyl ethyl means (104) and teaching control means (102) for the invention of this case, the remainder of the elements are equivalent to the invention of this case under paragraph (1) of this case, it falls under the scope of the right to the invention of this case under paragraph (1) of this case.

⑤ The Defendant alleged that the instant Claim No. 1 invention was a scarbly scarbing method by inserting the Grand River, but there was a difference in that it would compromise with each other with the instant Claim No. 1 invention. However, while the instant Claim No. 1 invention is identical to the instant Claim No. 1 invention in that the inner aspect of the instant Claim No. 1 invention was sealed by inserting it into Fin-ro.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Summary of the instant patent invention

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 2, the patented invention of this case is related to Loterary luculer, and it has been highly difficult, complicated, and the noise according to the operation of each part has occurred. The patented invention of this case continues to supply luculum at a certain rate, but is stored in reserve without damage at a certain quantity of luculs (18) and luculs (19), so that it can secure time to connect luculs with each other by continuously supplying luculs by making it possible to continuously supply luculs, so it is recognized that it can continue to manufacture luculs without stopping, and that it has the specific purpose and effects of reducing manpower and hours of defective products, together with the fact that the scope of the patent claim of this case of this case has the same purpose and effects as the occurrence of each of the patented invention of this case.

B. Whether the challenged invention is specified

First, the plaintiff cannot be said to have been specified to the extent that the invention in question could be compared with the patented invention in this case, and thus, the defendant's petition for a trial should have been dismissed, so I would like to look at it.

In general, the invention subject to a request for a trial must be identified as much as it can be compared to the patented invention in question. For that purpose, the concrete composition of the subject invention does not need to be written in whole, and the specific composition of the part corresponding to the elements for the patented invention must be stated. However, the specific composition must be stated to the extent necessary to determine differences in comparison with the elements for the patented invention (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Hu381 delivered on May 24, 1994, 99Hu2372 delivered on August 21, 2001, 200Hu2323 delivered on April 23, 2002, etc.).

In this case, the statement and drawings on the invention in question submitted by the defendant for the confirmation of the invention in question shall be deemed as having been excessively detailed, but it shall not be deemed as having been impossible to grasp or determine the difference between the elements of the invention in question and the elements corresponding to the elements of the invention in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this case, such as "Sadrid (36), wheel press (D), Mobin P), Naro-type (4), Naro-type (3), and Naro-type (2), as well as the elements corresponding to the elements of the invention in question, which are not directly necessary for comparison with the elements of the invention in question, for example, the elements of the "Public pressure-driven Zone (106)" (P) and the "Equipment Pfin-type (108)" to operate the Human Tunnels.

In this regard, the plaintiff argued to the effect that the equipment actually produced and sold by the defendant was located in the outer side as shown in Gap evidence 7 and Gap evidence 9, but the defendant did not specify the invention in question since the device without outer side diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver 7, and the defendant produced with the non-party diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver dives of the invention in question, and Gap evidence 9 was a photograph of the product in question manufactured with the non-party diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver diver.

C. Whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case

(1) Whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the claim 1 invention of this case

(A) Determination criteria

If the claim within the scope of a patent claim for a patented invention contains multiple elements, a technician as a whole which is an organic combination of each element is protected, and each element is not protected independently. Thus, if the invention in question compared to the patented invention has only a part of the essential elements specified in the claim within the scope of the patent claim for the patented invention and the rest of the elements is lacking, the invention in question does not fall within the scope of the patent right for the patented invention in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 9Hu1584 delivered on September 7, 2001, etc.).

(B) Preparation for the composition of the instant Claim 1 invention and the challenged invention

1) Because it is installed on the 1string line (15) of the instant Claim 1 at a fixed forum (10) with only 16 mar-gun (16) and it is located on the 1string line (12) of the instant Claim 1 at a rate of 1 pin line (14) and on the 1string line (14), it is installed on the 1string line (35) of the instant Claim 1 at a rate of 1 at a rate of 1 pin line (38 pin line) with an open space of 3 pin line (36) with an open space of the instant Claim 1 at a rate of 1 at a rate of 1 pin line (38 pin line), the two components of the instant Claim 1 at a rate of 1 at a rate of 1 to ensure that there is no possibility that these components of the instant Claim 2 at a rate of 1 at a rate of 200 pin line (21) with an open space of 1 at a rate of 1 (0).

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the man-bin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fins

In order for the invention to be seen as falling under the scope of patent right of the patented invention, in principle, an organic combined relationship between each element and element of the patented invention must be included in the invention subject to confirmation. However, even if the elements are exchanged or changed in the invention subject to confirmation, if the solution principle of task in both inventions is identical, even if they are based on such substitution, they can achieve the same purpose as the patented invention, carry the same effect in substance, and show the same effect in the art to which the invention pertains, and it is so obvious that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily think, unless there are special circumstances such as that the invention subject to confirmation could easily make an invention from the technology already known or publicly known at the time of the application for patent application of the patented invention, or that the elements exchanged for the invention subject to confirmation through the procedure for the application for patent application of the patented invention fall under the equivalent relationship with the elements corresponding to the patented invention, the invention subject to confirmation still belongs to the scope of patent right of the patented invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Hu278.).

In light of the above principles, it can be said that the two components of this case are the same with the objective of supplying 1 pinine to the main body of the 1string of the finine. However, considering the solution principles and operating effects of the task, one component of the finine (11) is likely to be tightly supplied from the front part of this case to the main body. On the other hand, it is more likely that the 1string of the finine (38) and the 1string of the finine (21) can easily be installed in the 1string of the two components of the finine (the finine) which are located in the main body and the 1string of the finine (the finine component of the invention in question) so that the 1string of the finine can not be easily established in the 1string of the finine (the finine component of the invention in question).

② The 15th invention of the instant Claim No. 1 is set up in the same depth 2, 2, 2, 2, 36, 36, 36, 15, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 15, 15, 200, 200, 15, 200, 200, 200,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00.

③ The composition of the 19th drum (19) on the one side of the three components of the instant Claim No. 1, the 3rd drums (18) of the instant Claim No. 1, in which the drum (19) was installed, correspond to the composition of the dembin dembin dembine (P) and the dembin dembin dembin dembine (21) of the instant Claim No. 1. As seen earlier, the dembin dembine part of the instant Claim No. 1 had the function of the dembin dembin dembine which is directed to reduce the dembine to the main body of the instant Claim No. 1.

④ 4. The composition of the instant Claim No. 1 is equivalent to that of the 1999 Gaug-gun (23) in the internal and external smoke of each of the instant Claim No. 1 (18). The outer part of the instant Claim No. 1 was established with the outer part of the Gaug-gun (24) and the outer part of the Gaug-gun (24). The outer part of the invention, where the outer part of the Gaug-gun (25) was installed with the outer part of the expected Gaug-gun (10). The outer part of the instant Claim No. 1 of the invention, “the outer part of the instant Claim No. 25, the outer part of the instant Claim No. 2, the outer part of the instant Claim No. 3, the outer part of the instant Claim No. 8, the outer part of the invention subject to the instant Claim No. 1, the two parts were different from the outer part of the Gaug-gun (23, the outer part of the instant Claim No. 15).

As to this, the plaintiff is a selective component that can be omitted in the event of a reduction in the course of comparison with 23 (23) and the outer side 25 (25) of the invention of this case. Thus, even if the invention of this case lacks this, it is alleged that it falls under the scope of the right to the invention of this case. However, Article 42 (4) 3 of the Patent Act states that the claim should be protected as the claim, and Article 97 of the Patent Act stipulates that the claim should include only the matters which are indispensable for the composition of the invention, and that the scope of protection of the invention of this case is determined by the matters which are described in the scope of protection of the invention of this case. Thus, the claim of this case is without merit.

(C) Therefore, the challenged invention has only 2,3 elements among the essential elements stated in the Claim Nos. 1 of this case, and does not have components 1, 4. Thus, the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of the right to the Claim No. 1 of this case.

(2) Whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to claim 2 of this case

이 사건 제2항 발명은 기대(10)를 ∠72°~∠78°기울인 것이나, 확인대상발명은 기대를 기울이지 않은 것인 점에서 양 발명은 서로 다를 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 제2항 발명은 독립항인 이 사건 제1항 발명을 한정하거나 부가하여 더욱 구체화 한 종속항으로서 그 권리범위는 이 사건 제1항 발명보다 좁다. 따라서 확인대상발명이 이 사건 제1항 발명의 권리범위에 속하지 않으므로 당연히 이 사건 제2항 발명의 권리범위에도 속하지 않는다.

(d) Conclusion

Thus, the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to the invention of this case as it lacks part of the essential elements of the invention of this case as stated in the claims of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this case, and the decision of this case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)