Attorney Yang Dai-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Patent Attorney Yoon-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. Case overview and the main issue

On September 10, 2001, the KPel filed an application for the patented invention of this case with the name of "the system and method for modifying the structure of display devices", and filed a patent registration (patent number omitted) on October 29, 2003. On November 9, 2015, the Defendant completed the entire registration transfer of the right to the patented invention of this case. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for the invalidation of the patent of this case upon receiving the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant for the revocation of Paragraph 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Paragraph 1 (the scope of the claim for the patented invention of this case," and the other claims are also indicated in the same manner), Paragraph 2 (4), (7), (9), and (12) of this case. The Patent Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff's claim for the revocation of Paragraph 1 (2) of this case and Paragraph 2 (1) of this case.

The key issue is whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 9 is denied. The issue is whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 is denied. On the premise thereof, the issue is whether the interpretation of the claims concerning the “dar structure of the instant Claim No. 1” is an issue of interpreting the claims concerning the “dar structure of the instant Claim No. 1”.

A. The scope of protection of a patent invention shall be determined according to the matters described in the claims (Article 197 of the Patent Act). The scope of claims is determined by the patent applicant’s intent to protect the patent invention. As such, determination of a patent subject to determination of newness and inventive step is based on the matters described in the claims.

A. However, a matter described in the scope of a claim can accurately understand the technical meaning that should be taken into account, such as an explanation or drawing of the invention. As such, matters described in the claims should be objectively and rationally interpreted after considering the technical significance of the description, based on the general meaning of the language and text, and considering the description, drawing, etc. of the invention. However, even if considering the description, drawing, etc. of the invention, it is not permissible to limit or expand the scope of the claim in accordance with other descriptions, such as the description, drawing, etc. of the invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Hu3230, Dec. 27, 2012; 2019Da222782, 22799, Oct. 17, 2019).

B. We examine in light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the court below. The claim is a method invention related to changing the display structure of a communications device. The claim is a process invention related to changing the display structure of a communications device. The claim is a stage in which "user enters an order for changing the display structure." At least one of the stored DNA structure data is searched at least, a stage of searching the display structure data, an indication on the display book of a communications device corresponding to the display structure data, an order for selecting the display structure data from a user is entered, and a method of changing the display structure of a display panel corresponding to the selective order is included in the stage of changing the screen of the display structure. The general meaning of the display of the display on the screen is bound by the technical formula at the time of the application, and according to the text of the claim claim 1 of the instant invention, the structure of the display invention related to the display structure of the instant claim 1 of this case can be seen as follows.

The disclosure structure of the liquid display device of a general mobile communication terminal refers to the form of display on the screen (hereinafter referred to as "data display field") on which data, such as letters (name, days, numbers (date, time), numbers ( antenna indication, sound antenna indication), and signs (hereinafter referred to as "data display field"), are displayed. The patent invention of this case provides the type of display on the display screen, such as a method by which various elements of the display structure of the liquid display device can be organized according to the user's identity. It is an invention that can be modified by the user by selecting and changing the display structure in the form of original source among the display structure stored in the mobile communication terminal.

In light of the general meaning of the language and text of the claim 1 of the instant Claim, the structure of display of the instant Claim 1 ought to be interpreted as “the form placed on the display screen in the data display area” on the basis of the general meaning of the text and text of the instant Claim 1.

3. Whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 invention is denied

A. The reasoning of the original judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following circumstances. The claims of the instant Claim No. 1, the description of the invention, and the drawings of the instant Claim No. 1, do not appear to have limited to different types of the data indicated in the data display area, such as the data displayed in the data display area, which constitutes the display structure of the instant Claim No. 1. The preceding invention 2 is an invention on “m-line screen separation display equipment and method” of TBB (TV). The instant Claim No. 1 and the preceding invention 2 are both adjacent technological areas by changing the “type in which the data display area is placed on the display screen” (hereinafter referred to as “the display form of screen”).

The technical task of the instant Claim 1 is that the display structure of the liquid display device is diverse depending on the user’s identity. The technical task of the prior Claim 2 is to ensure that users can choose more accurately and easily the space of the multi-face screen division by displaying the division status of the multi-face screen in the form of a container on the screen. However, in the prior Claim 2, the selection of a specific type of screen division status among the variety of screen division status of the multi-face screen of the multi-face screen of the same type is determined according to the user’s intent. As such, the prior Invention 2 contains various technical task of the instant Claim 1 invention that consists of a variety of types of screen assignment types depending on the user’s identity.

The instant Claim 1 invention and Prior Invention 2 are identical in the series of stages in which the form of posting the screen is to be changed in order to solve the foregoing technical task, i.e., the data on the type of posting the stored screen to be searched and indicated on the screen, and, if an order to select a specific type of screen is entered, the process of changing the screen in the form of posting the screen is identical. As can be seen, the instant Claim 1 invention and Prior Invention 2 are identical in the form of solving technical task. While the subject of the application of the instant Claim 1 invention is a display of communications device, while the subject of the application of the instant Claim 1 invention is a display of communications device, the prior invention 2 is the method of changing the type of screen display by both inventions, and the method is the same. A person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the instant Claim 1 invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) does not apply to the modification of the method of posting the screen screen to the method of posting the prior invention 2.

B. Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied as it can be easily claimed by a person of ordinary skill based on prior inventions 2. Since the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 is denied, the nonobviousness of the invention should be deliberated and determined on whether the nonobviousness of the invention, including the technical characteristics of the instant Claim No. 2, 4, and 9, which contain or add some components, is denied.

4. Appropriateness of the judgment of the court below

The court below interpreted that the DNA structure of the instant Claim No. 1 can include one or more areas among the three areas of fluor image, the area of fluorization name, and the area of fluorization A, while indicating "the arrangement of fluor screen to be determined by the combination, such as the location and size of all other areas constituting the dluor screen," and it is interpreted that each area separateing the dluor screen, and different data are displayed.Based on such interpretation, the original court determined that the inventive step by the instant Claim No. 1 Claim No. 2 is not denied by the instant Prior Claim No. 1 Invention No. 2 on the grounds that it is not identical to the instant Claim No. 1 invention, on the premise that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 2 is not denied by the instant prior Claim No. 2 on the grounds that it is not identical to the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

In the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation of claims and determination of inventive step of a patented invention, which affected the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

5. Conclusion

The remaining grounds of appeal are reversed without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, and the judgment of the original court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below 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 Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Noh Tae-ok