2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 3]

A. Patent invention of this case

The plaintiff's patented invention of this case (registration No. 100447, September 22, 1993, June 10, 1996) pertains to "the manufacturing method of COVERDYYN", and the claims and drawings thereof are as shown in attached Table 1.

(b) An invention subject to verification;

The drawings and specifications of the invention subject to confirmation in the attached Table 2 shall be as specified in the attached Table 2.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for an affirmative confirmation of the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, since the invention subject to confirmation uses the patented invention of this case as a process of evaluating the examination and investigation in the manufacture of Cerickers, and the invention subject to confirmation is within the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as No. 2003Da666, and rendered a trial decision dismissing the plaintiff's request on February 27, 2004 for the following reasons.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

In preparation for the patented invention of this case and the challenged invention, the arrangement method of the layout structure, and the cross-examination method of the upper Cryp of the patented invention of this case differs from that of the challenged invention of this case, and the two inventions are different from that of the challenged invention of this case, and the length of the transfer method of the patented invention of this case. The examination dyp of the patented invention of this case differs from that of the challenged invention of this case, and the structure of the challenged invention of this case, which specifically limits the shape and material quality, are different from that of the challenged invention of this case. Accordingly, the challenged invention of this case has an effect of the examination by reducing strong pressure or friction during the examination, or preventing static electricity generation, and the rubber examination dyp of the rubber of the patented invention of this case and the V-type synthetic resin examination of the challenged invention of this case are different from that of the patented invention of this case. Accordingly, the challenged invention of this case can not be deemed to be equal merely interchange or modification of the patented invention of this case, and its composition and effect are different from that of the patented invention of this case.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

The composition of the slope angle of the lower part of the patented invention of this case and the lower part of the Crystle, and the direction-setting of the lower part of the trial, is substantially the same in that it reduces the space by forming the second floor when compared to the Crystle and Bobane of the challenged invention of this case. The lower part of the challenged invention of this case is the kind of the lower part of the examination of the patented invention of this case. The lower part of the patented invention of this case is the V-type rubber, and the lower part of the V-type synthetic resin examination of the challenged invention of this case is the same action effect that instructs the examination as accurately as V-type synthetic resin, and the lower part of the challenged invention of this case is different. Accordingly, the challenged invention of this case falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case, and the trial decision of this case should be revoked by unlawful means.

B. Determination

(1) The plaintiff first asserted that, since the patented invention of this case is about the manufacturing method of the Kerbers, only the part concerning the manufacturing method should be compared to both inventions among the description of the invention of this case, although the trial decision of this case should be compared to both inventions, the part concerning the first system of the drawing, which is a device that can be used for the manufacturing method among the description of the invention of this case, should be identified as if the part concerning the invention of this case is an element of the challenged invention. However, in the affirmative trial to confirm the scope of a scope of a scope of a scope of a scope of a right, the invention of this case is asserted by the claimant, which is not an abstract invention, but a specific working form, and the specific invention of the challenged invention is a specific invention prepared and submitted by the claimant, and the invention of this case is specified by the specification and drawing of the challenged invention of this case. Although the invention of this case is within the necessary limit to prepare for the manufacturing method of the patented invention of this case, the argument in this case should be considered in addition to the specification of the invention of this case.

(2) We examine whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case.

In order for the invention to be considered within the scope of the right of the patented invention, the organic combination relationship between each element and the component of the patented invention must be included in the invention subject to the confirmation. However, even if the elements are exchanged or changed in the invention subject to the confirmation, if both inventions have the same solution principle in both inventions, even if they are exchanged, they can achieve the same objective as the patented invention, and show the same effect in the patented invention even if they are exchanged, 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 of it, unless there are special circumstances such as where the challenged invention falls under the technology that could have easily made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains from the technology already known or publicly known at the time of the application for the patented invention, or where the elements exchanged through the procedure for the application for the patented invention are excluded from the scope of the right of the patented invention, they still belong to the scope of the right of the patented invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Hu368, Jun. 198, 2008).

이 사건 특허발명과 확인대상발명의 구성을 대비하여 보면, 이 사건 특허발명의 구성 중 “정방기의 상부에 설치된 크릴을 그 지주(S)를 중심으로 하여 좌, 우에 상부 크릴스텐드와 하부 크릴스텐드의 2개층으로 구성하고 하부 크릴스텐드와 상부 크릴스텐드 사이에 형성된 경사각도 0≤θ≤45°가 되도록 하고 심사보빈은 상부 크릴스텐드에 고정된 펙(peg)에 상향으로 꽂고”라는 구성은, 확인대상발명에서 “정방기의 상부에 설치된 크릴을 지주(10)를 중심으로 좌우에 우상측심사보빈(1), 우하측심사보빈(2), 좌상측심사보빈(3), 좌하측심사보빈(4)을 수평으로 2층 구조로 설치하고 그 하부에 하우측조사보빈(5,5‘), 하좌측조사보빈(6,6’)을 좌우에 수직으로 설치하여 상기 보빈들은 펙(11)으로 지주(10)에 고정시켜 설치”한 구성에 대응하는바, 양 발명 모두 심사보빈과 조사보빈을 상하 2개층의 공간으로 나누어 설치한 것이고 그에 따라 종래와 같이 심사보빈용 크릴스텐드를 조사보빈용 크릴스텐드의 외측 수평방향으로 추가로 설치함에 따라 공간이 2배로 넓어지는 것을 방지할 수 있는 효과가 있다는 점에서 동일하다고 할 것이나, 한편 이 사건 특허발명은 상부 크릴스텐드가 하부 크릴스텐드의 위쪽에서 0≤θ≤45°의 경사각도로 조절될 수 있도록 상부 크릴스텐드를 하부 크릴스텐드의 외측 단부에 연결하여 배치함과 동시에 심사보빈을 위 상부 크릴스텐드에 상향으로 꽂음으로써 심사보빈이 수평을 기준으로 45≤θ≤90°의 경사각도로 설치되는 것인 반면, 확인대상발명은 경사각도가 조절되는 상부 크릴스텐드 대신 지주(10)에 고정된 2개의 지지대(12,12‘)에 심사보빈을 외측을 향하여 수평으로 꽂음으로써 심사보빈이 수평을 기준으로 약 0°(다만 확인대상발명 제1도에는 심사보빈이 완전한 수평이 아니라 약간 세워져 있다)의 경사각도로 설치되는 것이므로, 양 구성은 상부 크릴스텐드의 배치구조 및 심사보빈의 설치각도에 차이가 있고, 그에 따라 심사의 이송경로에 있어서 확인대상발명이 이 사건 특허발명에 비하여 더 짧아지게 되어 심사가 실내의 풍면 등의 영향을 받는 것을 최소화할 수 있게 되는 작용효과의 차이가 있다고 할 것이다.

나아가 양 발명의 위 각 구성이 균등관계에 있는지 여부를 살펴보면, 양 구성은 위에서 본 바와 같이 그 구성 및 작용효과가 서로 동일하다고 볼 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 심사보빈의 경사각도에 관하여 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서는 “본 발명에 의하면 심사보빈은 상부 크릴스텐드에 고정된 펙에 상향으로 꽂혀 있으므로 θ가 0°일 때에는 심사가 보빈으로부터 풀려나올 때 상향으로 받는 장력이 종래의 하향으로 받는 장력보다 커서 실이 절단될 염려가 있을 뿐만 아니라 심사층이 점차로 감소됨에 따른 심사의 장력변화도 커지게 되므로 이 문제를 해결하기 위하여 본 발명에서는 심사의 섬도가 적이 실이 끊어질 염려가 있을 때에는 상부 크릴스텐드의 경사각도 θ를 45°범위내에서 경사되도록 조절할 수 있게 하였다”(갑2호증의 3면 14～18행), “θ가 45°를 초과하는 경우에는 심사보빈이 펙으로부터 빠져나올 염려가 있다”(3면 23행)라고 기재하고 있어 심사보빈이 수평을 기준으로 45°이하로 되는 구성을 의식적으로 제외하고 있는 점에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 특허발명의 위 구성을 확인대상발명의 위 구성으로 치환하는 것이 그 발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 용이하게 생각해 낼 수 있을 정도로 자명하다고 볼 수 없으므로, 양 구성이 균등하다고 할 수는 없다고 할 것이다.

In the composition of the patented invention of this case, the composition of "The examination which was unsatisfyed through the review screen" is corresponding to the part "" which corresponds to the part of the invention in the challenged invention of this case through "Satisfyd (31,31's "30) installed at the lower part of the review screen (7). The invention of this case has a difference more specifically than the detailed composition of the review screen screen (7). However, although the two parts are designed to guide all of the two parts, the above review screen screen composition of the invention of this case is also included in the review screen of the patented invention of this case. Thus, it is difficult to see that the two parts are different.

Since the composition of the patented invention of this case consists of 7 marropolytics with 5 marropolytics (7 marropolytics) and 7 marropolytics (7 marropolytics) with one another, if the marromatics (8 marropolytics) are composed of 5 marropolytics with marromatics (8 marpolytics), the marpolytics (11 mar) with marpolytics (8 marropolytics) with martics (8 marropolytics) with one another, the marpolytics (8 marpolytics) with marromatics (8) with one another, the marpolytics (11) with one another with another's marromatics and two marpolys (21) with two marromos.

In the composition of the patented invention of this case, the composition of "an investigation unfolded from the twelter through the twelter" means that "an investigation unfolded from the twelter through the twelter, through the parallel point of 9) twelers (9) (9) and twelers (10) twelers (10) through the parallel point of twelers (11) twelers (11) twelth (1) twelth, and at the same time, yould from the twelter (5) twelth (5) twelth (5.15) twelth from the twelter's twelthr's twelthr's twelthr's twelthr's twelthr's twelthr's twelthr's twelth's t welthr.

As a result, the invention in question lacks the same composition as the upper Cryle’s arrangement structure and installation angle of the upper Cryle’s installation among the composition of the patented invention of this case, and rubber examination guidelines, and the corresponding composition of the corresponding invention cannot be deemed to be equal to the above composition of the patented invention of this case. Thus, the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the invention in question is not identical to the patented invention in question and its composition and action effects are not identical to the patented invention in question, the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention in this case, and the decision of this case that is identical to the decision of this case is justified.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)