[2] The case holding that the patent application invention, the name of which is "low temperature flaz disinfection equipment", has no inventive step compared to the cited invention in the name of "non-obviousness of the name of the hydrogen flaz disinfection system"

[2] The case holding that the patent application invention, the name of which is "low temperature flaz disinfection equipment", has no inventive step compared to the cited invention in the name of "non-obviousness of the hydrogen flaz disinfection system"

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Evidence: entry of Gap 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1, 2

A. The patent application invention of this case and the quoted invention

(1) The plaintiff is named as "low temperature flaz disinfection equipment", and the applicant for the invention of this case (the patent application number No. 1998-28218, the patent application date July 13, 1998) as shown in attached Form 2.

(2) The patent application invention of this case relates to a low-level flass disinfection device that does not remove toxic residuess on the surface of the material where the hydrogen and air generated by the decomposition are disinfected within flass when the product is disinfected, and the claim(s)(s) are as follows.

1. An article 10 (10) with an upper part (2) with an upper part (3) with an installation of a erode (10), an reaction vessel (1) with an erode (3) with an erode of flow erode (4) with an erode of the above erode (2), an injection heat (5) through an injectr (4) with an erode of the erode (6) with an erode (6) with an erode of the above erode (3) with an erode electric power generator (8) with an erode of the high frequency generator (8) with an erode (11) added to the lower part of the above reaction vessel (11) and a erode vessel (12) added with an injectr heat (5), and after mixing with an air with an air condition with an air condition of erode (18) with an air pressure of erode (14) with an air pressure of e;

2. In paragraph 1, a low-ion floz disinfection device with a characteristic of using high-frequency (RF 13.56MHz) capacity combination type, which is characterized by means of high-frequency electric power certification that the above floz resource (8) is minatedly authorized.

3., 4. ( Deleted)

5. In paragraph 1 of this Article, the high-frequency electric power source (8) which is a high-frequency electric power source necessary to generate the above franz is characterized by authorizing the voltage of high-frequency electric power source of 13.56MHz at the intervals of 1 KHz in order to prevent the overheating of reaction gases and objects to be disinfected (9).

(3) Summary of the cited invention

The cited invention (Attached 2. Drawings) is an invention of the name "the system for the sterilization of hydrogen fluor", which was initiated on July 12, 1998 in the Patent Gazette No. 4,756,882 (Evidence No. 1 of the Patent Gazette of the United States, which was patented on July 12, 1998. The purpose of the invention is to provide a system for the sterilization of active species to disinfect the microorganisms of products such as the surface of the object or medical appliances, using a hydrogen fluor, which adopted a hydrogen fluor. The composition is to contact the products to be disinfected with the hydrogen fluor, the effect of the sterilization is to introduce the products possessing residual fluor, the effect of the sterilization of the products in the residual fluoric acid into the fluor, and the effect of the disinfection and dissolution of the products in the outside of the fluoric acid to be generated from the residues and the residual residues of the fluoric acid products to be generated from the residual and the residual residues products.

B. Details of the instant trial decision

(1) On February 27, 2001, the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection on the ground that the invention can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, and thus, it cannot be patented under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.

(2) On March 30, 2001, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial seeking the revocation of the above decision of refusal, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal tried the above case as 2001 won855 and dismissed the plaintiff's petition for a trial on July 2, 2002 as follows.

C. Summary of the reasoning for the instant trial decision

(1) The instant Claim 1 invention and the cited invention are both identical with the purpose of sterilizing microbials, etc. on the surface of the same object as medical appliances by using an overxid acid fluor, in which both the instant Claim 1 invention and the cited invention are identical.

(2) The instant Claim No. 1 invention, as a type of fluor, uses a capacity-combined generation device, and has an injecter to make the hydrogen solution in a gaseous state prior to fluoration, whereas the quoted invention uses a composite type of equipment, and discharges air in the reaction instrument to close the reaction container, exhaust gas in the reaction instrument, and exhaust gas in the reaction instrument, and enables approximately 0.1 through 10 Tr to cut the hydrogen solution in the reaction instrument. The instant Claim No. 1 invention has a difference in that it has an injectr to gaseous the hydrogen solution in prior to fluorization, but it is not widely known that it is not a combination device, but a difference in the quantity of the reaction technology in both inventions.

(3) Considering the fact that both inventions have the effect of not keeping the remainder of toxicity on the surface of the disinfection object, there is no particular difference in the disinfection effect following the use of the injecting machine of the patent application invention of this case. In light of the specification of the patent application of this case, however, there is a statement that the disinfection time and power can be reduced according to the use of the hydrogen of high concentration, but the enhancement of disinfection efficiency by raising the concentration would be easily considered without any special difficulty if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the patent application invention of this case pertains.

(4) Therefore, although the instant Claim No. 1 invention has a little difference in the cited invention and the accelerator generating device, such difference is merely a way to think of without any difficulty if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the instant invention pertains, and thus, it can easily make an invention.

(5) If any of the claims claimed in a patent application is rejected, the patent application must be rejected. Thus, the invention in the patent application in this case cannot be patentable without the need to examine the remainder of the claims.

2. The parties' assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Grounds for revoking the trial decision of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant trial decision ex officio deliberated by adding the existing technology of the quoted invention that was not presented in the decision of rejection as evidence of denial of inventive step to the invention of this case. This is not in conformity with the grounds for rejection, and thus, it is in violation of the procedure of failing to take such procedure despite that the Plaintiff had been given an opportunity to state his opinion pursuant to the latter part of Article 159(1) of the Patent Act.

(2) The purpose of the instant patent application invention is to disinfect microorganisms, etc. using hydrogen hydrogen at low temperature, while the cited invention is to disinfect such microorganisms, etc. using hydrogen hydrogen at low temperature, and the scope of both inventions differs in the category of inventions, and the specific technical means to achieve the purpose of the invention differs in detail as different inventions.

(3) In the composition of the invention, ① in a combination method for generating flass at low temperature, the invention of the instant Claim 1 is a combination type of capaed RFzs and uses all high frequency of 13.56MHzs. On the other hand, the quoted invention is a combination type of b.49M Hz and uses 3.89MHzs in the form of b.49 MHz. Accordingly, the quoted invention of the instant Claim 1 is different from the c. c. 1 invention of the instant case’s c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. st. st.). st. st.

(4) Furthermore, the patent application invention of this case has a different effect from the cited invention of this case, which is merely a simple process of disinfection, and it is possible to obtain a complete disinfection effect by fully contacted the hydrogen hydrogen and the substance to be disinfected in the gaseous gases, since it is not only a simple process of disinfection, but also has a different effect from the cited invention of this case, which is merely a process of inserting the gas into the ste (14) while inserting the gas into the stetra (14), and then spreading the gas in a stero as the amount of expropriation is divided, and therefore, the patent application invention of this case cannot be easily claimed from the cited invention by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention of this case pertains.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The grounds for the instant trial decision are identical to giving an opportunity to present opinions because it is consistent with the grounds for and awareness of the decision of refusal. The reference to the prior art of the cited invention was made by the instant trial decision as an example of an explanation that the invention can easily be seen from the cited invention, so there is no need to separately give an opportunity to present opinions on the cited invention. In particular, in interpreting the technical composition of the cited invention, it is not a simple literal interpretation, but a professional engineer’s claim should also be understood as a part of the technical composition of the cited invention by identifying the technical matters inherent in the cited invention based on a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the instant invention pertains, who is not a simple

(2) The instant Claim 1 invention is the same as the cited invention in terms of disinfection in that it causes fluora by using hydrogen hydrogen as the front body of the reaction active species, and it comes to contact the surface of the object and treats it.

(3) In the composition of the invention, the technical scope of the Claim 1 invention of this case is merely the same or similar to the composition of the cited invention, or merely the combination of widely known and commonly used techniques, and the technical scope of the Claim 1 invention of this case is merely to maintain only a certain time after inserting the hydrogen in the fluence head office, and there is no difference between the Claim 1 invention of this case and Claim 1 invention of this case (3) invention of this case. Since the flus head office, the flus head office, and the flus head office of the flus head office before the flusing of the flus head office before the flusing of the fluss head office, the flus head office, etc. of the flus head office, are easily operating the flusor in the flusor of the flusor in the flusor of the flusor in the flusor in the flusor of this case.

(4) Since the devices used in both inventions have the same scope, their effect is not easily predicted if they have ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention in this case pertains, and thus, the invention in this case can easily be seen from the cited invention.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the procedural illegality argument

First of all, the plaintiff's assertion that the trial decision of this case was unlawful because it did not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to state his opinion ex officio by adding a new cited invention. As seen above, the trial decision of this case recognized that there was a capacity-combined device other than a type-combined type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-go-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-.

B. Preparation for the instant Claim 1 invention and the cited invention

(i)the purpose of the invention;

The purpose of the instant Claim 1 invention is to provide low-ion flass disinfection devices that do not store toxic residuess on the surface of the disinfection object after having contacted the surface of the object to be disinfected by a hydrogen oxide flass, and then have done disinfection. The purpose of the cited invention is to provide a low-ion flass disinfection system that adopted a low-ion flass disinfection system of active species to disinfect the microorganisms of the product such as the surface of the object or medical instruments. The purpose of both inventions is to provide the disinfection equipment or disinfection system that generates flass by an oxygen and disinfects them in contact with the surface of the object to be disinfected. The industrial purpose of both inventions is to share the same field of use in the industry.

(ii)the composition of the invention;

(A) In order to prepare for the invention of this case, the elements of paragraph (1) invention of this case are divided: ① the reaction vessel (1) installed at the upper part with an object (9) hexed with packaging materials (10), the reaction vessel (1) installed at the lower part, and the injecting heat (5) through the flow control equipment (4) at the lower part, and the above mound (3) with an injectr (6) with an injectr (6) with an injectr (3) with an injectr (8) with an injectr (8) with an injectr (11), ② the reaction vessel (1), and 12 (12) with an injectr (4) with an injectrative pressure of the lower part (3) with an injectingr (1) with an injectrative pressure of the lower part (14).

(B) ① The composition 1 of this case is a type of device generating flass and has a capacity-combined type type flass equipment. The corresponding quoted invention’s flass type 1 document “in the process of combining radio frequency power from the output of the nominal circuit network, it is achieved by one of the two ccos or one set. These two forms of combination are a composite type and a capacity-combined type (4 knife 34 to 38 lines).” In the invention’s method, flass are generated in the same manner as the prior art’s flass system (4 knife 47 to 49 lines).”

In addition, Eul evidence Nos. 4,321,232 of the cited invention, the U.S. Patent No. 4,348,357 of the U.S. patent, and the Japan Patent Gazette No. 58-103460 of the Patent Gazette, all of the above inventions initiates a system to disinfect a capacity-combined fluor. As such, both the motion-combined fluor device and the capacity-combined fluor device, together with the motion-combined fluor device, are all known and used in the technology to which the patent invention of this case belongs.

② Under Section 2 of the instant case, an excessive hydrogen solution (12) is used as an active reaction type in the occurrence of flaz, and the evidence Nos. 1 of the instant case states, “The whole substance of active species in the low temperature flaz disinfection system is used as an organic substance of active species (the first 2 to 3 knife from below 2 knife).” Thus, the content of the excessive hydrogen solution in Section 2 of the instant case is identical to the cited invention.

In addition, the contents of Section B related to Section 2 of this case are as follows: "The content of Section 1 of this case concerning Section 2 of this case is as follows: "I ambling the products to be disinfected in the method of this invention into the head of the head of the head of the string in the string in the head of the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string in the string and the string in the 2nds connected to the head of the string in the string in the string to string in the string in the string in the 2nds."

Comprehensively taking account of the above records, the quoted invention is a string of water in the heading room and combines the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the water of the case.

③ As to the third composition of the invention of this case, the amended specification of the invention of this case (A No. 4) states as follows: "In the low temperature flass disinfection device of this invention, there will be flass with low temperature below 100 cc., which is less than 100 cc., this will create flass by setting the pressure of an oxygen in the gaseous gas into 1.5 Torr (5 to 3 e.g., from the 8 pages)." The quoted invention (A evidence 1) states as follows: "The low temperature flass of this invention are pressure below 10 cc., and it entails temperature below 100 cc. (4 cm 10 to 13 cm)." The third composition of this case is substantially the same as that of the quoted invention of this case.

④ Therefore, the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention cannot be said to be difficult for a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the instant invention pertains, to constitute the cited invention.

(iii)Effects of the invention;

(A) With respect to the effects of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, Gap evidence Nos. 4, as to the effect of the instant Claim No. 1, when disinfection of tools for medical use or operation (9) by these inventions, since the by-products generated by sprinkine sphere, different from the previous gas sterilization method, are decomposed as nontoxic substances, additional processes are unnecessary to remove sphere (9) or residual sphere in packing materials (10). (2) According to the instant Claim No. 1, it is possible to use the hydrogen and air in a gaseous state, to use the hydrogen sphere and air, and to use the hydrogen sphere and air to sphere and sphere less than those of the sphere sphere 1, and to use the sphere sphere sphere sphere solution within the prescribed number of sphere air to sphere and sphere air to sphere sphere pressure.

(B) As the cited invention is decomposed by a non-toxic substance during the process of flaz treatment, it is not necessary to take an additional steps to remove residual hydrogen residues from the infected product or its packaging (6 knife 12 to 16 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

(C) Among the effects of the instant Claim No. 1, as the effect of 'medical tools or surgery (9)' is disinfected by the instant invention, the effect of the instant Claim No. 1 is merely the same as that of the 'exploitation and treatment system', and the effect of the 'exploitation and treatment system' is obviously different from that of the 'exploitation and treatment system', and the effect of the 'exploitation and treatment system' is nothing more than that of the 'exploitation and treatment system', and the effect of the 'exploitation and treatment system' is nothing more than that of the 'exploitation and treatment system', which are different from that of the 'expitation and treatment system', and it is no more than that of the 'expitation and treatment system', which are different from that of the 'expitation and treatment system', which are different from that of the 'expitation and treatment system'.

(4) Therefore, the first invention in this case is a common purpose compared to the cited invention, and there is no difficulty in composition, and it cannot be seen that its effect is obvious. Thus, a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention in this case pertains may easily make an invention from the cited invention.

C. Judgment on the plaintiff's other assertion

The plaintiff made an excessive hydrogen solution into gases and disinfects them by mixing them with the air. However, the quoted invention first contacted with the products to disinfect hydrogen solution, and then disinfects them with the products to disinfect the hydrogen solution, and then it is argued that there is a difference between the quoted invention and the quoted invention in light of lack of the process of treating them by an excessive hydrogen (pretreatment). As seen in paragraph (1) invention of this case, the cited invention of this case has a difference with the quoted invention in terms of lack of the process of treating them by an excessive hydrogen (pretreatment). As seen in paragraph (2) (b) of the above 3-B of the above 3-2 of the above 3-2 of the above 3-2 of the above 3-2 of the above 3-2 of the above 5-2 of the above 5-2 of the invention of this case, after making it into the gas outside the fluring place, injecting them into the heading room, and in case of burning them, and the plaintiff's assertion of this case is not reasonable.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the claim 1 invention of this case cannot be registered as a patent under Article 62 subparagraph 4 of the Patent Act and Article 29 (2) of the Patent Act due to the lack of non-obviousness. The entire patent application invention of this case should be rejected since the patent application of this case should be rejected in the case where there are grounds for rejection even one of the claims in the patent application invention which consists of several claims (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu603, Apr. 25, 1997).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the trial decision of this case just and there is no ground for the plaintiff's claim of this case.

Judges Cho Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Kim Jae-hwan