[실용신안등록무효][공2001.2.1.(123),306]
[1] Whether the production of a car-sloping can be recognized without specific evidence (affirmative)
[2] Whether the technical composition of an invention or device provided in a judgment of newness and advancement of a registered device must be clear (negative)
[3] The case holding that the registered device is not new since it is substantially identical to the cited device
[1] It is not acceptable in light of the empirical rule to view that the Ka Bag was produced, distributed, and distributed will be socially accepted, and that the president is not distributed and distributed without distributing it. Therefore, even if there is no specific evidence as to the scope of distribution, place of keeping, etc., it cannot be denied that the Ka Bag was distributed and distributed.
[2] An invention or device provided as a result of the determination of a newness or inventive step of a device must be not only clearly expressed the technical composition of the device, but also a lack of expression due to a lack of incomplete inventions or materials, if it is possible for a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to easily understand the technical content based on the empirical rule.
[3] The case holding that the registered device is not new because it is substantially identical to the cited device
[1] Article 5 (1) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 5 (2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [3] Article 5 (1) 2 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 19 (1) 1 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Hu47 decided Dec. 24, 1985 (Gong1986, 320), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu144 decided Jun. 22, 1990 (Gong1990, 1579), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1410 decided Feb. 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1035), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu508 decided Sept. 4, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2418) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1514 decided Aug. 26, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2891)
Kim Sung-sung Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Won-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Hayang Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 96Da196 dated November 29, 1997
The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
It is general to promote sales by offering or sending to the trading line for the promotion of self-processed products and securing and exploitation of new trading lines. The consumer as well as the trading line is in the real situation of industry and it is necessary to promptly obtain and analyze and cope with it. Such distribution is not limited to Korea, but can be seen in light of our empirical rule even if it is collected and used promptly in order to obtain the goods and technical information among the international markets as it is more frequent and convenient as well as in today's trade, it is possible to find out that it is social norms to distribute and distribute it if it was produced, and that it is the president without distributing and distributing it. It is not acceptable in light of the empirical rule to view that it is being distributed and distributed to the trading line, and even if there is no specific evidence as to the scope and place of distribution of it, it is not possible to deny the distribution of it to the trading line (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Hu1484, Dec. 14, 197).
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
An invention or device provided in the judgment of newness or inventive step of a device, as well as an invention or device whose entire technical composition is clearly expressed, even if the invention or device is insufficient to express due to lack of material, may be subject to such an invention or device if a person with ordinary knowledge in the art can easily understand the content of technology based on the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1514, Aug. 26, 1997).
According to the records, Gap evidence No. 4 was not written in detail to the extent such as the specifications of invention or device, but as a whole, the new valves technology of the renewable machine, the automatic coordination function of the dry air system, the air exhauster valves, the air exhauster valves, and the partic valves (purgevalve) open for a certain pressure and provide continuous air oil in a certain pressure. The technical matters of the dry air such as drying machine operation, the drawings helping understand them are initiated, and if a person has ordinary knowledge in the technical field, it can easily grasp the technical contents in accordance with the empirical rule and the explanation and drawings shown in evidence No. 4, and thus, the technical contents can easily be easily stated in the evidence No. 4.
In this regard, the court below is just in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, and it did not err in the incomplete hearing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.
3. As to the third ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, in comparison with the registered appeal of this case and the cited appeal, there are differences in both devices in terms of the number of the quoted device and the noise gauge compared to the registered appeal of this case. However, the exhauster valve stated in the claims of this case in the registered appeal of this case consists of three routes like the cited appeal of this case, and the operation of the exhaustr valve is made through three passages, and it is made through the flow and entrance of air through three ways, and the shuter's shuter's shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' shuts' 1.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)