2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s filing invention

(i) Name of the invention: Switzerland typoles and transparent paintings;

2) The date of priority claim/international application/ the filing date/application number: July 17, 2001/ May 24, 2002/ January 13, 2004/ 2004-700529 of January 13, 2004

3) Claims and drawings: as shown in Appendix 1.

(b) Invention;

The contents and drawings of the Japanese Patent Gazette published on March 18, 1997 concerning the "Tin and the manufacturing method thereof" (Evidence A8) published in No. 9-71860 of the Japanese Patent Gazette, which is published on March 18, 1997, are as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

On July 3, 2008, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the presentation of his opinion on the grounds that the patent application of the instant invention is denied by the cited invention, and that the patent application invention of the instant case is denied by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the instant invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention based on the cited invention and thus, the nonobviousness is denied.

The Plaintiff submitted the amendment on September 3, 2008. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on November 28, 2008 on the ground that the patent application invention under paragraphs (1) through (5), (7), and (8) of this case was denied by the comparison of inventions, and that the patent application invention under paragraph (6) of this case was denied by the comparison of inventions.

On December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, and submitted an amendment on January 30, 2009. On March 2, 2009, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rendered a decision to maintain the original decision on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied based on the comparable invention, and the amended invention of the instant Claim No. 6 was denied based on the comparable invention.

On the other hand, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated the above case on May 14, 2010 as 208 Won14153. On the other hand, the amended invention of the instant Claim No. 1 is denied by the cited Invention. Since the invention of the instant Claim No. 1 is substantially identical to the amended invention of the instant Claim No. 1, the invention of the instant Claim No. 1 is denied by the cited Invention, and the patent application of the instant Claim No. 1 is also denied by the cited Invention. In a patent application, if there are grounds for rejection in any of the claims, the patent application should be rejected by all. Accordingly, the decision of rejection of the Plaintiff’s request was rendered on the ground that the decision of rejection

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the comparison invention excludes the numerical range of less than 0.5at per cent in relation to the numerical limitation of the bulk cargo of the third source shop with more than 3 originals, the scope of the content of the bulk cargo of the third source shop of the invention in the instant case’s correction invention and the third source shop of the patent application invention exceeds the scope of the comparison invention.

(2) The instant Claim 1’s amended invention and the patent application invention have both special and qualitative effects to lower the rate of flive resistance of the other flag compared to the cited inventions at the same time, at the same time, to enhance the speed of the string of the transparent spacker, and at the same time, to enhance the speed of the string of the transparent spacker, and without any need to examine the dynamic significance of numerical justice, newness is not denied through the cited inventions, and even if the string cannot be seen as a dpacker effect, the instant Claim 1’s amended invention and the patent application invention of this case are recognized as having significant changes in the lower limit of the numerical scope and the upper limit of the numerical scope in the speed of the spacker or the spacker. Therefore,

3. Whether the amended invention under paragraph (1) of this case is new

A. Legal doctrine

Where the invention for which an application was filed is merely limited to the scope of the elements of the invention publicly known prior to the filing of the application as numerical value, if the numerical limitation is not recognized as the complexity of composition, and if the special effect or clinical significance is not recognized due to numerical limitation, the invention for which an application was filed is denied newness due to the substantially identical technical composition with the publicly known invention (see Supreme Court Decision 200Hu1283, Nov. 10, 200).

(b) Organizational preparation

1) Technical composition of the amended invention under Paragraph 1 of this case

이 사건 제1항 보정발명은, ‘산화인듐과 산화아연으로 이루어지는 In₂O₃(ZnO)m [단, m은 2 내지 7의 정수이다]로 표시되는 육방정 층상 화합물을 함유하며(이하 ‘구성요소 1’이라 한다), 또한 +4가 이상의 원자가를 갖는 제3원소의 산화물을 0.01 내지 0.2원자% 함유하는(이하 ‘구성요소 2’라 한다) 스퍼터링 타깃‘으로 구성되어 있다.

(ii) component 1

The components 1 correspond to the studal flag containing a studal compound on the floor of the studio, which is indicated by the radiumum and obsteis (Provided, That m, m, m, e. 2 through 7). This corresponds to the studal flag containing a studal compound on the floor of the studio, which is indicated by general formula (m=2 through 7) of the comparable invention (A Evidence 8, No. 21, 7 through 10).

The two composition includes any product expressed in chemical formula, such as "m=2 and 7," and is composed in that it is a sporing flag formed by using the above creation.

(iii) components 2

The components 2 correspond to “the string flag containing 0.01 to 0.2 per cent of the bulk cargo of the third source site with at least +4 originals,” which corresponds to “the string flag containing at least 3 originals with at least 20 per cent of the total quantity of raw elements,” which refers to “the string flag containing at least 3 originals with at least 20 per cent of the total quantity of raw elements” (A evidence 8, No. 21, No. 1 through 7).

In the comparable invention, "Zr, Ge, Sn, Ti, and Si" is indicated as the example of the third source lawsuit with more than 3 originals (A evidence Nos. 8, 21, 4, and 5). Since the above original elements are the original elements of +4, both compositions are identical in that they are the heading spingpoles containing the third source cargo with more than 4 originals. The 0.01 to 0.2 won, which is the numerical range of the third source cargo of the component 2, are included in the total quantity of the 3 source cargo of the comparable invention, the numerical range of the third source cargo of the 3 source cargo of the comparable invention, and thus both compositions are the same in the ratio of the 3 source cargo of the 3 source cargo of the comparable invention.

이에 대하여 원고는 첫째로, 비교대상발명에 ‘특히 제3원소가 티탄인 경우, 전체 양이온 원소에 대한 티탄의 비율은 0.5∽10at%의 것이 매우 바람직하다’(갑 제8호증 식별번호 22, 1 내지 3행 참조), ‘또한, 티탄의 비율이 0.5at% 미만에서는 종래 공지의 타깃 소결 시에서 소결조제로서의 역할을 수행하는 것에 머물 뿐, 후술하는 바와 같이, 제막 분위기에 의존하지 않고 도전막의 저항의 균일성이 보유된다는 효과가 발현되지 않기 때문이다. 티탄의 바람직한 비율은 전체 양이온 원소에 대해서 1∽8at%이다’(갑 제8호증 식별번호 22, 7 내지 13행)고 기재되어 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 비교대상발명의 상세한 설명에서는 20at% 이하의 3가 이상의 원자가를 가지는 제3원소의 산화물에서 0.5at% 미만의 수치범위를 배제하고 있음이 명백하므로, 양 구성은 제3원소의 산화물 함량비율에서 구성상 차이가 있다고 주장한다.

살피건대, 갑 제8호증에 의하면, 비교대상발명의 명세서에 원고 주장과 같이 ‘제3원소가 티탄인 경우 전체 양이온 원소에 대한 티탄의 비율은 0.5∽10at%의 것이 매우 바람직하다’는 취지로 기재되어 있는 사실은 인정되나, 이는 비교대상발명에서 제3원소를 티탄으로 한 경우에 있어서 전체 양이온 원소에 대한 티탄의 비율이 0.5～10at%인 것이 매우 바람직하다는 의미일 뿐, 제3원소가 티탄이 아닌 다른 산화물인 경우에도 제3원소의 비율이 0.5～10at%인 것이 바람직하다는 의미로 볼 수 없고, 비교대상발명에 ‘전체 양이온 원소에 대해서 20at％ 이하의 3가 원자가를 가지는 제3 원소의 산화물을 포함하고’(갑 제8호증 특허청구범위 청구항 2 참조)라고 명시적으로 기재되어 있는 이상, 비교대상발명이 제3 원소의 산화물에서 0.5원자% 미만의 수치범위를 배제하고 있다고 볼 수는 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

Second, the plaintiff asserts that the sphering flag of the amended invention of this case does not carry with the sphering treatment, compared to the fact that the sphering flag of the amended invention of this case did not carry with the sphering treatment, the composition is different in that the sphering flag of the comparable invention was treated with the sphering treatment. However, the claims of the amended invention of this case as referred to in paragraph (1) of this case include only the "sphering other flag" and it cannot be interpreted limited to the sphering flag that does not carry with the

4) Review of the requirements for newness of the amended invention under Paragraph 1 of this case

Therefore, the amended invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is identical to the cited invention publicly notified prior to the filing of the application. However, in a case where the scope of numerical value is more limited in the ratio of the 3rd source content, and where the numerical limitation is not recognized as the difficulty of composition, and special effects or clinical significance is not recognized due to numerical limitation, newness is denied because the publicly notified comparable invention and technical composition are substantially identical to the publicly notified comparable invention. Therefore, it is examined whether there is difficulty of composition, special effects due to numerical limitation, or clinical significance due to numerical limitation.

First of all, in the amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, it is difficult to constitute numerical limitation.

According to the description of the instant Claim 1, there is a problem in which the 3rd or more transparent fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluoral fluorial fluor.

Next, we examine whether the effects caused by numerical limitation in the amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case are special or qualitative effects compared to the comparable inventions.

The amended invention of Paragraph 1 of this case has the effect of manufacturing a string and other flag with no electric shock at the time of string as long as the string rate of the string flag is lower, and there is no risk of fluoring the string or other flag at the time of the string, and the transparent string of the string by using it has the excellent effect of string the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as “instant No. 113”). On the other hand, the cited invention has the effect of preventing the string of the transparent string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string at the time of using the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the st.

However, as to the effect of the amendment of Paragraph 1 of this case, the aforementioned effect is not explicitly indicated in the comparable invention. However, the amended invention of this case and the comparable invention of this case are identical in its composition, its formation scope, organization status within the same criminal state, and there are no differences in the operating effect in the case where the use is identical with that of other flag, and thus, the effect of the amendment of Paragraph 1 of this case is inherent in the amended invention of this case even in the comparable invention. As seen earlier, it is difficult to see the effect of the correction of the Claim 1 of this case, which is more effective than the existing material in terms of the effect of the initial invention of this case in terms of the initial invention of this case in terms of the efficacy of the initial invention of this case, the string flag, which is composed of the materials of the steinic and steinic acid, has the same effect as that of the initial invention of this case, and it is difficult to see the effect of the amendment of paragraph 1 of this case prior to the addition of the 3rd invention of this case.

Finally, I will examine whether there is a critical significance in relation to the effects caused by numerical limitation in the amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

이 사건 보정발명의 명세서에는, ‘이 스퍼터링 타깃에 함유되는 +4가 이상의 원자가를 갖는 제3원소 산화물의 비율은 0.01 내지 1원자%이다. 이 제3원소 산화물의 함유 비율을 이러한 범위 내로 함으로써 스퍼터링 타깃의 부피 저항률을 충분히 낮게 하고, 즉, 타깃을 사용하여 제막할 때의 이상 방전이나 타깃의 균열이 발생하지 않는 7mΩ·cm 이하, 바람직하게는 5mΩ·cm 이하로 할 수 있다. 또한, 이 타깃을 사용하여 제막된 투명 도전막은 옥살산 등의 약산에 의해서 용이하게 에칭 가공을 실시할 수 있게 되는 것이다. 여기서, 이 +4가 이상의 원자가를 갖는 제3원소의 산화물의 비율이 0.01원자% 미만이면, 스퍼터링 타깃의 부피 저항률을 충분히 낮은 값으로 억제할 수 없고, 또한 이 제3원소 산화물의 비율을 1원자%를 초과할 때까지 증대시키면, 그 스퍼터링 타깃을 사용하여 제막된 투명 도전막은 옥살산 등의 약산에 의한 에칭 가공을 실시하기 어려워지는 경우가 있다. 이 +4가 이상의 원자가를 갖는 제3원소의 산화물의 함유 비율은 0.02 내지 0.2원자%인 것이 보다 바람직하고, 0.03 내지 0.1원자%인 것이 더욱 바람직하다’(을 제1호증 식별번호 19 참조)고 기재되어 되어 있는바, 위 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 보정발명의 명세서에는, +4가 이상의 원자가를 갖는 제3원소의 산화물의 비율이 0.01원자% 미만이면, 스퍼터링 타깃의 부피 저항률을 충분히 낮은 값으로 억제할 수 없다고 하여 수치범위 하한의 기술적 의의는 어느 정도 기재되어 있지만, 수치범위 상한의 기술적 의의는 제3원소의 산화물 비율을 1원자%를 초과할 때까지 증대시키면, 그 스퍼터링 타깃을 사용하여 제막된 투명 도전막은 옥살산 등의 약산에 의한 에칭 가공을 실시하기 어려워지는 경우가 있고, 제3원소의 산화물 비율은 0.02 내지 0.2원자%인 것이 보다 바람직하다는 취지만이 기재되어 있을 뿐, 수치범위 상한인 0.2원자%라는 수치범위 내외에서 현저한 효과가 생긴다는 점에 관하여는 구체적으로 기재되어 있지 않으며, 이 사건 제1항 보정발명의 명세서의 실시예(오른쪽 표 참조, 을 제1호증 식별번호 107)를 보더라도 위와 같은 수치범위의 하한 및 상한이 임계치라는 것이 전혀 기재되어 있지 않다.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case can be recognized as a significant effect on the side resistance rate or the function of name within the lowest limit and the upper limit of the numerical limit, and therefore, the amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is recognized as a critical significance of numerical definition.

However, since the numerical limitation has a significant effect in quantity, as long as the ordinary technician is not stated in the specification to the extent that he can recognize it through the specification itself, it is not possible to determine the newness of the numerical limitation invention with the technical significance of numerical limitation recognized or confirmed by the experimental data later. Accordingly, the additional experiment data (Evidence A 9 and 10) submitted by the plaintiff is merely a subsequent test data on the corrected invention, and it is merely a subsequent test data, and thus it cannot be said that the newness is not denied on the numerical limitation of the corrected invention of this case. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, the instant Claim No. 1 invention falls under a case where the scope of the elements of the cited invention publicly known prior to the filing of the application is merely limited to the numerical value as a numerical value, and thus, it is not recognized that the numerical limitation is difficult to constitute, and there is no special effect or clinical significance due to numerical limitation, and thus, newness is denied as the technical composition of the cited invention is substantially identical.

4. Whether the invention filed under paragraph (1) of this case is new

The amended invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is limited to the percentage of the source in the third source lawsuit with more than +4 originals in the invention of Claim 1 of this case. Thus, as long as the amended invention of Claim 1 of this case is denied by comparable inventions, newness is denied by the inventions of Claim 1 of this case as the amended invention of Claim 1 of this case is denied by comparable inventions.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the invention of amendment and patent application of Paragraph (1) of this case shall be rejected, and in a patent application, if there is a ground for rejection in any one of the claims, the patent application shall be rejected in its entirety. For this reason, the trial decision of this case which judged that the original decision is justifiable is legitimate. The plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)