Law Firm Kcel, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Young-chul, Justice Lee Jae-chul, Justice Lee Jae-hwan, Justice Kim Yong-sung, and Park Jong-sung

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Ma-sung

Law Firm Jinsu (U.S.)

Attorney Kim Won-il, Lee Jong-il, Lee Jong-chul, Jeonn, Hong-dong, Lee Chang-ri

Patent Attorney Park Chang-hee, Kim Jong-hee, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee

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

(a) The title of the invention of this case 1) : the date of application for the separation of multiple-use designs and electric chemical compounds using them 2) / the date of priority claim / the date of registration / the date of registration / the number of registration / the number of registration : December 21, 2005 / December 22, 2004 / November 2, 2007

3) A patentee: Claims 4 and main drawings: as shown in [Attachment ] (hereinafter referred to as " Claim 1" and " Claim 1", and the remaining claims shall be made in the same way).

(b) Cited Invention 1 (No. B. 1)

A) Date of publication / Publication: Name of Japanese Patent Gazette No. 11 - Japanese Patent Gazette No. 80395, Mar. 26, 1999: / Invention No. 2 (No. 2) of comparable Invention 2 (No. 2)

A) Date of publication / Open Publication: Name of June 25, 2001 /Sgd. 2001- 2001- 53640 of the Patent Gazette of the Republic of Korea: The date of disclosure/Public Notice No. 3 (the same as evidence No. 3-1 and evidence No. 8) of comparable Invention 3 (the same as evidence No. 3-1 and No. 8) for batteries: The name of the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2004- No. 227972bb) for non- flooded 4) comparable Invention 4 (No. 4) for non- flooded off batteries batteries.

A) Date of publication / Publication: On September 11, 1998, 1998 / The title of the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 10-241656(b): Bad Invention 5 (No. 5)

A) Date of disclosure / Open Publication: April 2003 / [Report (NL - 03/16) on the publication of the American Argon National Research Institute (U.S.)] or Item (b) of this paper: Screing Reu - Pow Li - Lonon HEV skills

C. On December 20, 201, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Plaintiff, the patentee, on the ground that the patent invention of this case not only is new or non-obviousness denied by the cited invention 1 through 3, but also is not indicated in the detailed description of the invention so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can easily execute the patent invention, and the patent claim is not supported by the detailed description of the invention.

2) On March 23, 2012, when the pertinent trial procedure was in progress, the Plaintiff corrected the claim 16 of the instant patent invention, and made a request for correction to correct part of the detailed description of the invention (hereinafter “request for correction”).

3) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated the above case as 3206 per 201. On August 9, 2012, the instant request for correction was lawful and accepted. The instant patent invention was rendered by the Defendant’s request for adjudication on the ground that its originality is denied by comparable invention 3.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap Nos. 1- 3, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1- 5 (including branch numbers for which there are numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Claim No. 1 invention of this case is clear and simple by the description itself, is supported by the detailed description of the invention, and is stated to the extent that the ordinary technician can easily execute the invention. Thus, Claim No. 1 invention of this case does not constitute the omission of the detailed description of the claim or invention.

2) The instant Claim Nos. 1 and 16 inventions are not denied newness and non-obviousness by the cited inventions, but are subordinate inventions that directly and indirectly cite the instant Claim Nos. 2 through 15, insofar as the nonobviousness and non-obviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 are not denied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Claim No. 1 invention of this case does not clearly specify what structure “the tools of Section 1 in the blank space (Inspite) is, and thus, its entries are not clear and simple, and are not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and it does not include the detailed description to the extent that ordinary technicians can easily implement the invention. Thus, Claim No. 1 invention of this case constitutes a lack of the detailed description of the claim or invention.

2) Since the instant Claim 1 invention is not clear as to which part of the technical engineering unit can achieve the purpose and effect of the invention, it constitutes an unregistered invention. 3) Since the composition of Claim 1 invention in the instant case is initiated in the comparable inventions, the instant Claim 1 invention is denied newness or non-obviousness by the comparable inventions, and the instant Claim 2 through Claim 15 invention, which is a subordinate invention directly or indirectly citing Claim 1 invention, is denied newness or non-obviousness, and the instant Claim 16 invention, which is the manufacturing method invention, is also denied by the comparison 1, 3, and 4 (the Defendant does not dispute as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s request for correction).

3. Determination of newness of the patented invention of this case

For convenience, we first examine whether new patented invention of this case is denied by comparable invention 3.

A. Preparation for the technical field of Paragraph 1 invention of this case

The Claim 1 invention of this case is related to an electrical chemical tenant who is the most important field in the research and development of batteries, among them, with respect to the development of eculatory batteries that can be charged with shocking (see, e.g., Nos. 3, Nos. 5, identification numbers (11), and with respect to the development of eculatory batteries that can be charged with shocking (see, e.g., evidence Nos. 3), with a new concept that can cover outstanding heat safety, electric chemical safety, electric chemical safety, high temperature iondo, electric shockdo, and eculic ionion rate, etc. compared to the previous polylefin vertical separation prevention, and with a new concept that can cover outstanding heat safety, electricity chemical safety, electric chemical safety, superior to that of the previous polyolfine department, and with respect to an electric chemical tenant that promotes safety and enhances performance (4,5, identification numbers of No. 3, identification numbers of No. 10, No. 20-10, Jan. 2, 200)

In that both inventions are related to the separation of the second batteries (proponer), it is judged that the technical field is common.

2) Part 1 of composition 1

The composition 1 of the Claim 1 invention of this case is "pool-fin vertical separation mar." This is corresponding to "the composition that uses the multi-use mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar in the specification of comparable invention 3, which is entered into the description "(010 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar."

B) Composition 2

The composition 2 of the Claim 1 invention of this case is 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called ')' which consists of one or more types of 'the man-made areas selected from the military composed of the man-made parts existing on the surface and on the 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second ' ' the man-the man- the man- the '.

Pursuant to the construction of "(3), 4, identification numbers [009], [010], and receptors (hereinafter referred to as "domination amount"), including but not limited to "domination") in support body or boms, the removal of media shall be multi-cognient polys and unsubs, including ... In addition, five pages identification numbers (02 / 002 / 002) from among evidence 3-1 of "(b)" shall be applied to the multi-uses (b) of Poline No. 3, 4 [209], and receptors (hereinafter referred to as "domination amount"), and materials obtained by removing media, and shall be prepared of Polins and Polols (B) of Poline and Pols (B) of Pololins (including lusiums) of Polins (B) of Polins (B).

In preparation for this, it is judged that the area of one or more types selected from the Gun which is composed of the base parts existing in the (polin dipine separation dipine dipine) described in (polin dipine separation dipine dipine), is identical in that the area of one or more types selected from the Gun which is composed of the base parts located in the (polin dipine separation dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine dipine diple.

C) Parts 3 (1) related legal principles

Inasmuch as a patent applicant intends to be protected as a patented invention, the confirmation of the invention subject to a newness and inventive step judgment shall be based on the matters described in the patent application, and it is not permissible to limit or expand the patent application by any other description, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention. However, the matters described in the patent application can be understood accurately by taking into account the detailed description or drawings of the invention. Thus, the matters described in the patent application shall be based on the general meaning of the text, and shall be objectively and reasonably interpreted after considering the technical significance of the invention to be expressed in accordance with the text, taking into account the detailed description and drawings of the invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10068, Jan

28. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu26, supra)

(2) Specific determination (A) 3 of the instant Claim No. 1 invention provides that “The active layers are connected and fixed by the high molecular, and the structure of the air has been formed due to the “intersecting space (intersecting secte) between the buyers of weapons”. As to the technical meaning of the “intersecting space ( intersecting secte)”, the Plaintiff is the same as the Plaintiff.

In contrast to the claim that "a space formed by a structure," the defendant asserts that "a non-fixed space (non-fixed space)" is "a non-permanent space."

In light of the general meaning of the language and text, the term 's active layer 3' of the instant Claim No. 1 invention refers to the term 'a air structure in which an empty space is formed between the persons entering a weapon and the persons participating in a weapon at the same time as it is fixed by a sarararar molecule at the same time.' However, in light of the following, it is reasonable to view that the term 'continct 3' of the instant Claim No. 1 invention does not mean only the space formed by the structure formed by the interview (sar) structure between the persons participating in a weapon, but also the space for which the persons participating in a weapon does not have any part of the active layer.

In other words, ① The instant Claim No. 7 invention is a subordinate invention of the instant Claim No. 1, and the content of the instant Claim No. 1 is added to and limited to the composition of the separation prevention of 50 to 99 gross weight per 100 weight of the mixture containing inorganic and high molecular, and thus, the instant Claim No. 1 invention’s active structure of the instant Claim No. 1 invention without the above added and limited composition is interpreted as including “a separation of which the content of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is less than 50% per 10% per 100 weight of the mixture containing inorganic and high molecular.” Meanwhile, the content of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is interpreted as including “a separation of which the content of the inorganic article is less than 50% per 10% per the weight of the mixture containing inorganic and high molecular.

If the weight of 50% is less than 50%, the high molecule's content is too large and reduced due to the reduction of space formed between the visitors of weapons, and the final performance of batteries may be reduced. (No. 8 of evidence No. 3) "(No. 42)," "No. 8 of polybin separation column, or multiple molecules introduced by the high molecule with the subscriber of weapons do not exist in a separate structure, or even if there is an air space, there is no poly and posium structure, or even if there is an air space, there is no 50 marization, and no 4 of this marization's marization's marization function is performed within 0% of the marization's marization or marization's marization's marization. (see 3).

Gap evidence 3 17 Do2a

② The instant Claim No. 13 invention is a subordinate invention of the instant Claim No. 1, and is added to and limited to the composition of the “pres/uns/unsins/unsins/unsinsins/unsinscins/unsinscins/unscinscinscins/unscinscinscinsc inscinscinscins,” which is within the scope of 5 to 95%. Thus, the instant Claim No. 1 invention’s activescinscins/unscinscinscinscinscins/unscinscinsc inscinscinscins

. 'A 58% air space' (see subparagraph 3, e.g., 12 pages identification numbers (84), 17 pages 2a among the evidence No. 3). Thus, the tools structure of the instant Claim No. 1 is 'a space formed by the structure in which only the aforementioned Do 2a through 5/58 persons enter the arms,' and the remainder is 'a space formed by the structure in which only the whole 5/58 persons enter the arms,' and it is reasonable to see that the 'a space in which the invention No. 1 of this case No. 3 does not have such structure.

즉, ① 비교대상발명 3의 명세서에는 ' 본 발명의 제조 방법에 있어서, 수용성 폴리머, 미립자, 매체를 포함하는 용액 ( 이하 ' 도포액 ' 이라고도 한다 ) 을 지지체 또는 B막에 도포하여 건조시키는 등에 따라 매체를 제거하면 이유는 분명하지 않지만 수용성 폴리머와 미립자를 포함하는 막은 다공막이 된다. 도포한 도포액이 건조되었을 때 미립자 주위에 극간 ( 隙間 ) 1 ) 이 생겨 다공막이 생성되는 것이라 생각된다. 수용성 폴리머를 포함하는 용액에 미립자가 포함되지 않으면 다공막이 되지 않는다. ' ( 을 제3호증의 1 중 5 , 6면 식별번호 [ 0022 ] ) 라는 내용의 기재가 있다. 위 기재내용에 의하면, 수용성 폴리머의 다공막은 미립자 주위에 극간 ( 隙間 ) 이 생겨 다공막이 생성되는 것인데, 이러한 미립자 주위의 극간은 ' 수용성 폴리머와 미립자간의 틈 ', ' 수용성 폴리머 상의 틈 ' 뿐만 아니라 구성 3의 기공구조와 같은 ' 수용성 폴리머에 미립자가 연결 및 고정되고 미립자 들간의 빈 공간으로 인한 기공 구조 ' 를 포함하는 것으로 봄이 상당하다 .

② 비교대상발명 3의 명세서에는 " 본 발명의 비수 전해액 2차 전지용 세퍼레이 터는, 수용성 폴리머의 다공막 ( 이하 ' A막 ' 이라고도 한다 ) 과 폴리올레핀의 다공막 ( 이하 ' B막 ' 이라고도 한다 ) 을 포함하여 이루어진다. " ( 을 제3호증의 1 중 3, 4면 식별번호 [ 0010 ] ), ' B막의 공경 ( 孔怪 ) 2 ) 은 3㎝ 이하가 바람직하고, 1m 이하가 더 바람직하다. ' ( 을 제3호증의 1 중 5면 식별번호 [ 0017 ] ), ' 본 발명에서의 A막의 공경은 구멍이 구형에 가까울 때의 구의 직경으로서 3m 이하가 바람직하고, 1㎝ 이하가 더 바람직하다. 공경의 평균 크기 또는 공경이 3㎝를 초과할 경우에는 양극이나 음극의 주성분인 탄소가루나 그 소편이 탈락할 때 단락되기 쉽다는 등의 문제가 생길 우려가 있다. ' ( 을 제3호증의 1 중 4면 식별번호 [ 0014 ] ) 라는 내용의 기재가 있다. 위 기재내용에 의하면, 수용성 폴리머의 다공막 ( A막 ) 은 폴리올레핀의 다공막 ( B막 ) 과 동일하게 다공막의 구조와 관련하여 ' 공경 ' 이라는 용어를 사용하고 있고, 그 공경의 크기는 구멍이 구형에 가까울 때의 구의 직경으로서 3㎝ 이하가 바람직하고, 1㎝ 이하가 더 바람직하다고 하므로, 통상의 기술자라면 미립자 주위의 극간을 ' 수용성 폴리머와 미립자간의 틈 ' 이나 ' 수용성 폴리머상의 틈 ' 으로 이해하기보다는 구성 3의 기공구조와 같이 ' 수용성 폴리머에 미립자가 연결 및 고정되고 미립자들간의 빈 공간으로 인한 기공 구조 ' 를 의미한다고 이해할 것이

It is reasonable to see that it is "."

③ With respect to the ball size of unregistered persons and receptors, the description of comparable invention 3 includes the following: “The average diameter of unregistered persons shall not exceed 3cm, and it shall not exceed 1m.” (5 surface identification number [021] out of the evidence 3-1 of this invention, 3], and “A ball diameter in this invention shall not exceed 3m in the direct diameter of the Gu, and it shall not exceed 1cm.” (2014), as shown in the above description, 4 surface identification number [14] of evidence 3] among those of 1 of 3, 100, 200 if it appears in the same structure, 3m or below average 3m or lower in the ball, 1m or lower in the ball, 1m or lower in the ball, 3m or lower in the ball, and 1m or lower in the ball, 1m or lower in the ball, and 1m or lower in the ball, which can be seen as an average 1m or lower in the ball.

4. The specification of the patented invention in this case may regulate the size of a person who enters weapons, the content of a person who enters weapons, and the creation of a high molecular with a person who enters weapons, which are composed of active components of the 4th unit in the separation prevention statement, thereby forming an effective structure together with the air space included in the separation prevention statement, and also adjust the effective size and the air space. There is no restriction on the size of a person who enters weapons, but it is desirable to 01 to 10 meters as much as possible in order to form film with uniform thickness and to stimulate appropriate public efficiency. 01m. In case of less than 01m, it is difficult to regulate the physical properties of a person who enters weapons, which are composed of 0m or less, and in case of more than 10m, more than 9m more than 0% of the final number of weapons than 9m more than 10m more than 0m more than 5m more than 5m more than 5m more than 5m more than mix of weapons.

According to the above, 0.0's size of 10', 10''''' and 10'''' and 10''''' are the main factors of 3'' formation, and the size of 01 to 10', and 10's large weight per 100's large weight or 99' are 0.0's large weight or below 3'(0's large weight or below)'(10's large weight or below 10's large weight or below 8', 00's large weight or below 10's large weight or below 0'(021) and 10's large weight or below 0's large weight or below 10's large weight or below 8'(0's large weight or below 10's large weight or 10''' in this invention are included in 00's large weight or below 8'.

⑤ With respect to the size and officially announced rate of the flag formed in the multi-cognent lusium, it is desirable that the specification of the instant patent invention is 0.01 to 10m and 5 through 95% of active stories, respectively, but it is not limited." (10 pages identification numbers out of evidence No. 3). However, the specification of comparable invention 3 also contains a statement that “The Amers diameter in this invention is less than 3cm and less than 1cm below 7%, and it is desirable that the Amers gap in this invention is less than 3cm as the diameter of the Gu when compared to the Gu type. The Amers gap is 30% to 70%, and 40% to 60%, and 40% to 40%, respectively, and it is desirable that 10% of the ball identification number be more than 30% per 40%.

6) As seen in the following table with regard to the method of manufacturing a separation from the detailed description of the instant Claim No. 1 and the invention No. 3 in comparison with the detailed description of the instant Claim No. 1 and the method of manufacturing the separation from the detailed description of the instant Claim No. 1, there is no difference between the inorganic container purchaser (unborn) and the second molecule (receptors) in the process of mixing, painting and drying, and the type, size, and content of the inorganic molecule (subdivideds) and the inorganic molecule (subdivideds) are common among each other. Further, the implementation of the instant Claim No. 1 is reasonable to view that the two inventions belong to the subordinate concept of the instant Claim No. 3 that can be created by combination, such as the type of the inorganic molecule, the type, size, and content of the inorganic molecule, and the type, content, etc. of the inorganic molecule 1 stated in the specification of the instant Claim No. 1 in accordance with the detailed description of the instant Claim No. 1.

(3) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the part 3 of the cited invention 3 (A) the Plaintiff claimed that, first, the Plaintiff expressed that, “the extreme meaning of “the extreme” among “the extreme gap around the undivided person” is limited to “the space,” and “the extreme gap around the undivided person” respectively, and that, during the implementation of comparable invention 3, “the extreme gap between the undivided persons” shows the situation where they are isolated by each other, and that, during the implementation of the comparable invention 3, the meaning of “the cM number and the cM number and the 013cm in the face of the 013cm in the face of the instant invention 0.0cm in the face of the instant invention 0.0 m. and the cM number and the c.m. m. m. m. m. are equally distributed at the prescribed distance on the CM number, it cannot be deemed that the 39.0% of the entire section of comparable invention 39.

However, in light of the following points, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

In other words, as examined in the foregoing paragraph (1) (2) (c) of the specification of the comparable invention 3, it is desirable that the diameter of the Gab in the invention is not more than 3cm as the diameter of the Gu at the time when the hole is cut off, and not more than 1cm. The public gap rate of the Gabs is 30% to 70%, and 40% to 60% is more desirable. (014%) Of the evidence No. 3, the 4 pages identification number [014] is used in the comparable invention 3, it is reasonable to interpret the term "marb" as "mar between the Gabs in the shape of the Gabs(A), and it is more reasonable to see that the term "marbs" of the Gabs in the form of the 'marbs in the form of the 'marmarization' is more than the 'marbs in the form of the 'mar between the 'marized'.

② 원고는 비교대상발명 3의 실시예 1과 같이 구형으로 가정한 밀도 4g / ㎠, 입경 13㎜의 알루미나 입자 2. 5g으로 두께 3㎝를 빈 공간을 이루도록 채우면 1m×1m이 아니라 62. 4cm×62. 4cm, 즉 전체 체적의 38. 9 % 정도만이 채워지고 나머지 공간은 비게 된다고 주장하나, 위 계산에는 수용성 폴리머의 부피가 전혀 고려되어 있지 않고 , 기공은 원고가 전제한 것처럼 단순입방구조가 아니라 다소 무질서하게 연결 · 고정되어 형성될 수도 있는 것이며, 구성 3의 ' 빈 공간 ' 이 무기물 입자들이 서로 면접 ( 面接 ) 하는 구조에 의해서 형성된 공간만을 의미하는 것이 아니라 활성층의 일부분에서 무기물 입자들이 서로 면접하지 않는 부분을 갖는 공간도 포함하는 것임은 앞서 다 ) ( 2 ) ( 나 ) 항에서 살펴본 바와 같다. 그러므로 원고의 위 계산결과는 오히려 구성 3의 기공구조가 비교대상발명 3 실시예 1의 기공구조를 포함하고 있다는 것을 반증한다고도 볼 수 있다 . ( 나 ) 원고는 다음으로, 갑 제9호증, 갑 제10호증의 1, 갑 제20호증의 1 ( 각 재현실 험결과 보고서 ) 및 갑 제10호증의 2 내지 4, 갑 제20호증의 2 내지 3 ( 각 재현실험결과 사진자료 ) 의 각 기재 및 영상을 근거로 비교대상발명 3의 실시예 1은 CMC 수지막에 알루미나 미세입자가 응집하여 있고, 수지막에 틈 또는 균열이 유발된 것이 관찰되며 , 도포가 불량하고, 다공막의 불량 등이 나타나고 있으며, 비교대상발명 3의 개량발명인 갑 제23호증 ( 2012. 5. 17. 공개된 일본 공개특허공보 특개2012 - 94493호 ) 에 개시된 발명의 명세서의 기재에 의하더라도 비교대상발명 3은 미립자가 응집되고, 도포가 불량하며, 다공막에 결함이 있다는 내용이 개시되어 있으므로, 이를 종합하여 보면, 구성 3의 기공구조가 비교대상발명 3의 대응구성에 개시된 것으로 볼 수 없다고 주장한다 .

However, in light of the following points, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

In other words, the contents of prior art compared to a patented invention are identified by the composition that started through the entire description of the specification of the relevant comparable invention, and it is not simply limited to the practice of the comparable invention.

② According to the specification of comparable invention 3, it is difficult to see that the above 1, 00 KM 1 was used as a 1, 200 KM 2, and that the 1,200 minutes of KM 2 were used as a result of the 1, 300 KM 2, and that the remaining 1,000 KM 1 was used as a result of the 1,00 KM 2, 300 KM 2, and the remaining 1,000 KM 1,00 KM 3,000 KM 1,000 KM 2,0000 GM 1,000,000 KM 3,0000,0000,0000 KM 1,000,000,000,0000,000,000).

(3) As to the scheduled use of comparable invention 3, the size of comparable invention 1 was 0: 0 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3m3 m3 m3 m4 m3m3 m3 m3m3 m3 m4 m3m3 m3 m4 m3m3 m3m3 m3 m3m3 m3m3 m3m3 m3m3 m3m3 m3m3 m3m3m3 m4 m3m3m3 m4 m3m3m3 m4 m3m3m3 m4 m4 m3m3m3 m4 m4 m3m3m3 m4 m4 m4 m3m3m3 m4 m4 m4 m3m3m3 m4 m4 m4 m4 m3m4 m4

④ The specification of the invention described in No. 23, which is the improved invention 3 of the comparable invention No. 23, stated that “slurriine 1” was not good for the technology of the comparable invention No. 3, and as a result, it was difficult to re-surriate the necessary area and make it difficult to form a multi-copiculation including calculous polys and microdeculers. Also, the slurrier acquired . The slurrier did not have any such characteristics as shutdown or ionoculsis. Also, the 3rd of the comparable invention No. 23 is insufficient to find out that the 3th of the evidence No. 23 of the comparison invention No. 1, which was launched in the area of the instant invention No. 3, and that the 3rd of the instant invention was repeatedly separated from the art No. 23 of the cited invention No. 3, and thus, it is difficult to see the content of the 3rd invention as seen earlier.

I asserts that this case is.

However, in light of the following points, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

In other words, as seen in paragraph (1)(c)(3)(b)(1), the contents of prior art compared to the patented invention are identified by the composition that was initiated through the entire specification of the relevant comparable invention, and it is not limited to the license of the comparable invention.

② According to the above appraisal results, 1: (a) prior to the implementation of the comparable invention 3: (b) the method of adding the CMF resin to and responding to it; and (c) the detailed process conditions, such as the adequate dispersion method, are not specified; (d) the period between 200 mp and 4.5g mp; (e) the period between 15 mp and 400 mp; (e) the period between 15 mp and the 400 mp; (e) the algora 22.5 mp; (e) the algora 22.5 mp and the 400 mp and the 400 mp; (e) the period between 3 and 4 mp and the 100 mp and the 4th mp mp mp mp mp mp sp m. (see, e., e., the appraiser embodyed the 3 m m 1 to the m.

Even if an experiment was conducted to appraise 1 of the art of comparable invention 3, it cannot be readily concluded that the specific process conditions fully coincide with the art 1 of the comparable invention 3. Therefore, it is difficult to deem the foregoing appraisal results to be re-susified 1 of the art 3 of comparable inventions 3 as they are.

Of the above appraisal results, 7 pages photographs of 14 out of the 5th appraisal result 15

③ 위 감정 결과에 의하면, 영역 1의 대부분 영역에서 두껍게 코팅된 A 영역 , 비교적 얇게 코팅된 B 영역 및 hole이 관찰되는 C 영역과 같은 특징적인 부분이 반복적으로 나타나고 ( 2013. 2. 26. 자 감정 결과 중 7면 1 ~ 5행 ), 각 국부영역 A, B, C에서도 두껍게 코팅된 부분, 얇은 부분 그리고 hole이 생긴 부분이 있으며 ( 위 감정 결과 중 8 , 10, 12면 각 1 ~ 2행 참조 ), 영역 2는 크게 crack이 보이면서 두껍게 코팅된 A 영역, 두 껍게 올라가고 큰 hole이 관찰되는 B 영역, 입자의 밀도가 적은 C 영역으로 이루어졌고, 각 국부영역 A, B, C를 살펴보면 각각의 국부영역에서도 두껍게 코팅된 부분, 얇게 코팅된 부분 그리고 입자의 밀도가 적은 영역이 반복되고 있으며 ( 위 감정 결과 중 14면 1 ~ 7행 ), ' 문지르는 정도로는 탈락되지 않는 코팅층이 형성되었으나, 육안으로도 코팅이 고르지 않음을 관찰할 수 있음. 대체적으로 두껍게 코팅된 부분, 얇게 코팅된 부분 등 roughness의 분포가 존재하며, 오랜 시간의 교반에도 불구하고 균일한 코팅층이 얻어지는 않았음. ' ( 위 감정 결과 중 21면 ' 비고 ' 참조 ) 을 알 수 있다. 이는 앞서 다 ) ( 3 ) ( 나 ) ②항에서 살펴본 비교대상발명 3의 명세서 중 실시예 1에 대한 기재, 즉 ' 주사형 전자현미경으로 필름을 관찰했는데 CMC 수지와 입경 0. 013m 정도의 알루미나 미립자가 균일하게 분산된 다공질층이었다. 본 필름의 투기도는 500초 / 100cc, 치수 유지율은86 % 이었다. ' ( 을 제3호증의 1 중 9면 식별번호 [ 0045 ] ), ' 실시예 1의 분리막은 종래의 폴리에틸렌 분리막 ( 알루미나 미세입자를 첨가하지 않은 비교예 1 및 CMC층이 없는 비교예 2 ) 에 비하여 치수유지율 ( 실시예 1 : 86 %, 비교예 1 : 86 %, 비교예 2 : 30 % ) 과 안정성 시험 ( 실시예 1 : 못 관통 시험에서 완만한 온도 상승, 비교예 1 : 전지 성능 측정 불가 , 비교예 2 : 못 관통 시험에서 현저한 온도 상승 ) 에서 우수하다. ' ( 을 제3호증의 1 중 10 , 11면 식별번호 [ 0049 ] ~ [ 0055 ] 참조 ) 라는 내용의 기재 및 ' 본 발명의 비수 전해액 2차 전지용 세퍼레이터는 이온의 투과성이 뛰어나므로, 본 발명의 비수 2차 전지용 세퍼레이터를 사용한 비수 전해액 2차 전지는 부하 특성이 뛰어남과 동시에, 본 발명의 비수 전해액 2차 전지용 세퍼레이터는 고온에서의 치수 안정성이 우수하므로, 사고에 의해 전지가 심하게 발열해도 세퍼레이터가 양극과 음극이 직접 접촉하는 것을 방지하여 안전성의 높은 비수 전해액 2차 전지가 되므로, 본 발명은 공업적으로 대단히 유용하다. ' ( 을 제3호증의 1 중 11면 식별번호 [ 0056 ] ) 라는 내용의 기재와 상이하다. 그러므로 위 감정 결과는 비교대상발명 3의 실시예 1을 그대로 재현한 것으로 보기는 어렵다 . 1 ④ 구성 3의 기공구조는 무기물 입자들이 서로 면접 ( 面接 ) 하는 구조에 의해서 형성된 공간만을 의미하는 것이 아니라 활성층의 일부분에서 무기물 입자들이 서로 면접하지 않는 부분을 갖는 공간도 포함하는 것임은 앞서 다 ) ( 2 ) ( 가 ) 항에서 살펴본 바와 같은데, 위 감정 결과에 의하더라도 그 일부영역에서 무기물 입자들이 서로 면접 ( 面接 )

(see, e.g., photographs of 9 pages 8, 11 pages 11 as a result of the above appraisal).

As a result of the above appraisal, the plaintiff's determination on the plaintiff's other arguments (11d) among the 9 pages photographs 8 of the appraisal result of the above appraisal (11th of the appraisal result of the above appraisal). The plaintiff also asserts that the invention of paragraph (1) of this case aims to recognize and resolve the problems that occur in the previous polyviting technology of the separation of polyfin department which is not recognized by the comparable invention 3, and the problem that there is no accurate awareness about the machinery section formed by the marrator due to the marization of the mar mar mar mar, which is not recognized by the comparable invention 3, while the invention 3 of this case aims to provide the mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 3 of the above appraisal, to achieve the above purpose.

However, in light of the following points, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

In other words, as seen earlier, the instant Claim Nos. 1 and Claim Nos. 3 are identical in response to the instant Claim Nos. 1 through c). Even if the instant Claim Nos. 1 and Claim Nos. 3 are different in terms of the purpose or task solution principle, if both inventions are identical, it is reasonable to view that the instant Claim Nos. 1 are not new in accordance with the comparable Invention No. 3.

2. The specification of comparable invention 3 provides 0 non-dispensive 2.0 non-exploitive 1 (see, e.g., 007) of non-disploitive 1; 3) of non-disploitive 4 (in case of non-disploitive 3) of non-exploitive 3 (in case of non-exploitive 3) of non-exploitive 4) of non-exploitive 5 (in case of non-exploitive 3) of non-exploitive 3) of non-exploitive 4 (in case of non-exploitive 5) of non-exploitive 1) of non-exploitive 1; 4) of non-exploitive roitive 3 (in case of non-exploit 5) of non-exploitive roitive 3) of non-exploit 2 of non-exit

③ In the specification of the instant patent invention, it is desirable to limit the weight of 50 to 99 per 10% per 10 or 99% per 10 moleculor of the container and high moleculor. In particular, if the weight is less than 50%, the high moleculor’s content is too much so reduced due to the reduction of vacant space and the degree of air capacity so that the final performance of batteries can not be reduced. Since high moleculor’s content is too small to exceed 9 per cent, it is likely that 0 per 1 or less per 8 per se of the instant invention will be reduced by 0 per se by 1 or more per se with 0 per se of the instant device. (40 per se of the evidence No. 3 of the instant patent invention).

(2) Following the Plaintiff: (a) the instant Claim 1 invention is an invention specifying an object by the structure of the object; (b) rather than preparing the manufacturing method of the object; (c) compared with the structure of comparable invention 3; and (d) manufacturing the amount of high moleculor by melting the (a) high moleculor in the instant Claim 1 invention; (b) adding and mixing the container with the high moleculor in the (a) high moleculor in the stage of (b); and (c) 1 or more areas selected from the Gun composed of the factory sections among the surface and the description of the separation preventor of polybine fin, which are the combination of materials, are derived from the construction sections of the instant Claim 1 invention, which are the same as the instant Claim 1 invention, even if it had gone through the same stage, the Plaintiff’s organization of the instant Claim 1 invention cannot be seen as not having been able to have had an appropriate understanding of the respective elements of the instant Claim 1 through the same process, in light of the following circumstances.

In other words, in principle, a new determination of a specific patented invention with a structure of a product is to directly compare the structure of the product and the structure of comparable inventions. However, if it is not possible to directly prepare for the structure in a chemical related invention such as the instant patent invention, if it is indirectly the same as the manufacturing method of the product, the patented invention can be determined as having no newness.

② Even if the instant Claim No. 1’s active story structure was completed from the above (a) to (c) stages, for example, as shown in the comparison No. 1’s Claim No. 2, it may be possible for the Plaintiff to derive the tools like the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, as seen in the foregoing (c) (2) (c), the instant Claim No. 1’s invention and the instant Claim No. 3 do not have any particular difference in the detailed implementation form of the invention. Further, the instant Claim No. 1’s detailed conditions, such as receptors, unregistered types, size, content, and solvents, which were initiated in the instant Claim No. 3’s implementation process, fall under the lower concepts of the manufacturing conditions in the specification of the instant Claim No. 1’s Claim No. 1’s invention. 3’s implementation of the instant Claim No. 22, the Plaintiff asserts that the effect of the instant Claim No. 1’s implementation of the instant Claim No. 3 is not clearly excluded from the manufacturing conditions in the specification of the instant Claim No. 1’s invention. 3.

However, in light of the following points, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

In other words, ① the composition of the instant Claim Nos. 1 and the comparable invention Nos. 3 are the same as that of the instant Claim Nos. 1 through (c). If the composition of the two inventions is the same, the effects of the two inventions shall also be deemed the same.

② As seen in paragraph (2) of the same paragraph, CMF’s 3H using the comparable invention 3 is 1.5% of the CMF’s concentration, and the point is about 3,000 mPa and SPa, 3) (2). (See No. 8 Do3 out of the evidence No. 11), CMF used by the Plaintiff to reproduce 1 of the comparable invention 3 in the comparison experiment indicated in the evidence No. 22, as Dicel 200, based on the concentration of 150 to 250 mPa and S, it is difficult to view that CMF’s point is different from the 1500 to 250 mPa and S (see, e.g., No. 3 of the evidence No. 21), and CMF’s point is deemed as a result of comparison with the comparison of the evidence No. 221 stated in the comparable invention 3.

③ As examined in the specification of comparable invention 3, “A” sufficiently diversifys ... from No. 1 to No. 3, 9 of the No. 3’s identification number (043 / 0043 / 00) and (2), the evidence No. 22 does not contain a detailed method that sufficiently diversifys al or US tenants. Thus, it is difficult to view that the instant Claim 3’s license is reproduced as is, as it is, one of the instant inventions 3.

3) In full view of the contents examined in the above paragraphs (1) through (2) as a result of comparison, the instant Claim 1 invention is deemed to be denied since comparable invention 3 and its technical field are common, and its composition and effect are the same.

B. Claim 2 to 5 inventions of this case

The Claim 2 invention of this case is a subsidiary invention of Claim 1, which is limited to (a) non-life container 5 or more in total, (b) non-life container 1 or less in total, and (c) non-life container 1 or more selected from the military composed of non-life container owners capable of transmitting rithium temperature. The Claim 3 or 5 invention of this case is a dependent invention of Claim 2, each of which is a non-life container 3 or more (b) additional non-life 1 or non-life 2, which is non-life Z2 or more, (c) additional non-life 3 or non-life Z2, each of which is non-life 5 or more, and (b) additional non-life 3 or non-life Z2, which is composed of non-life cium 1 or non-life 3, or non-life Z2, which is composed of non-life gynasium 2 or non-life gynasium 5 or more.

Compared to this, 'Al2O3' of the comparable invention 3 is a inorganic container container (see, e.g., claim 2, 5, 8 pages identification number (39) of comparable invention 3, 'Al2O3', 'Al2O3', 'Ti2', 'Al2 and 'Ti2' of the instant Claim 2 and 5', 'A' (see, e.g., Claim 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 4 of the instant invention, 'a new invention' is denied by the comparison invention 3 of the instant Claim 3 of the instant case, 'a inorganic article', 'b), 'a inorganic article' which is added and limited to the No. 3 and 4 inventions of the instant case, and 'a inorganic invention 3 of the instant case' and 'a inorganic invention 5' of the instant Claim 3 of this case.

C. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of this case

The inventions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of this case are subordinate inventions of paragraph 1 of this case, each of which is "the size of the person entering the arms" is 0.01 to 10 cm, and the content of the arms is 0.0 to 8.0 cm per 10% of the mixture including the person entering the arms and the high molecular, which is 50 to 99 % of the weight of the mixture. The above additional and limited composition is desirable for 3m or less of the average entrance price in the specifications of comparable invention 3, respectively, and 1m or less." (021 / 0) Of the evidence 3-1 of this case, it is desirable to include 0 to 0 0 % of the weight of 10 to 80 mal. (2). (3) of the weight of 0 mal. m.

In contrast to this, the above added limitation composition of the instant Claim No. 6 invention is identical to the corresponding composition of comparable invention 3 and the size of the person who entered the arms (undivided person) within the scope of 0.01 to 3§¯. The above added composition of the instant Claim No. 7 invention is identical to the corresponding composition of comparable invention 3 and the content of the inorganic container (undivided person) within the scope of 50 to 88.8.8. Thus, it is determined that the instant Claim No. 6 and Claim No. 7 invention is denied by the cited Invention 3.

D. The inventions of paragraphs 8 through 10 of this case

The inventions of paragraphs 8 through 10 of this case are subordinate inventions of each of the instant Claim 1, each of which is "high molecules," respectively, and the detailed description of the instant Claim 1 is limited to the composition of "a separation prevention within the scope of lubation index (slobat par value) from 15 to 45MPa," "a high molecular molecules," "a separation prevention within the range of 1.0 to 100 (Measurement frequency = 1kHz)," "bome molecules", "Aminthrophthycll, .................."

It is desirable that high molecules can use the range of 1.0 to 100 (frequency 1 kHz), in particular, it is desirable to use 10 or more. If possible, it is desirable for high molecules whose solution index is 15 through 45MPa, and if it exceeds 15 through 25Ma and 30 through 45MPa, it is difficult to sring out of ordinary liquid damages. The content of the invention of this case contained in paragraph 3 of this case includes 4 of this case’s territhic ethyl 5thothic 5thic 4thic territhic 5thic 4thic territhic 5thic 4thic territhic 5thic 4thic territhic 4thic territhic territhic 5thic territhic 5thic territhic 5thic 4thic territhic 5thic 4thic ter.

In contrast to this, the addition and limited composition of the instant Claim No. 10 invention are identical in that it uses the response structure of comparable inventions 3, CMF, Sinoethyl et al. as a high molecular (receptors). The addition and limited composition of the instant Claim No. 8 and Claim No. 9 also have the equivalent composition of response structure of the instant Claim No. 8 and Claim No. 9, which are added to and limited to the instant Claim No. 10 invention, as the higher moleculars listed in the instant Claim No. 8 and Claim No. 9 have the equivalent composition of response structure of comparable inventions 3, which is identical to the response structure of comparable inventions 3.

In addition, the invention of paragraphs 8 through 10 of this case is judged to be denied by each comparable invention 3.

E. Paragraph 11 of this case

The instant Claim 11 invention is a subordinate invention of the instant Claim 1, and is limited to the composition of “one or more kind of separation or more selected from the Gun consisting of high density polyethylene, low-concentration polyethylene, linear low-concentration polyethylene, primary high-molecule ethylene, and polypropyene.” The foregoing addition and restriction composition is for example, “Bothm” among the specifications of the instant Claim 3, of comparable invention 3, is the multiple lux of polybin, and is for example, for example, ethyl, proton, 1-Blux, etc., of high molecule molecule molecule 4-1-4 of “(05)”. Among these, it is desirable that high molecule molecule molecule ethyle 4-1 of evidence 3-1-4(005).

In preparation for this, among the addition and limited composition of the instant Claim No. 11, “the first high molecule ethylene and polypropyene” is not limited to the molecular capacity, and thus, it is identical to the ethylene 3’s ethylene, high molecule ethylene or polypropyene which is combined with the protopy, and thus, the instant Claim No. 11’s invention is deemed to be denied by comparable inventions 3.

F. Paragraph 12 of this case

The instant Claim No. 12 invention is a subordinate invention of the instant Claim No. 1, and is added to and limited to the composition of the “so-called “so-called separation prevention within a range of 1 to 100 km from an inorganic multi-use separation prevention.”

Of the specifications of comparable invention 3, the thickness of "A" is desirable to be not less than 0.1cm but not more than 10cm, and the range of not less than 0.5cm and not more than 5cm is desirable. "(013)," the thickness of "B" is desirable to be not less than 5-50cm, and the thickness of "5-30cm is more desirable." (2) Of the evidence 3, the separation of comparable invention 3 [4 pages identification number [017] out of the evidence 3] 4 pages identification number [2] among the evidence 3] 4 pages 4 in the comparable invention 5.1(2) [2] 5.5m of polyboline (Bcoin) + the thickness of the two inventions are separated from the scope of the two inventions in this case.

G. Paragraph 13 of this case

The instant Claim No. 13 invention is a subordinate claim invention of the instant Claim No. 1, and the size of the flag space in the non-cognating mix 0.01 to 10cm, and the flag space is limited to the composition of the "non-cognating mix within the range of 5 to 95%". The foregoing additional and limited composition is a wind not exceeding 3cm as a diameter in the Gu's diameter when the hole is close to the mouth in the specification of the instant Claim 3.

It is desirable that 1m or lower is 30 to 70%, and 40 to 60% is desirable. Of the evidence No. 3, 40 to 1 of “(014)” is corresponding to the composition launched on the entry of “(4 pages No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3, 014]. Both composition are the same within the range of 0.01 to 3m of the separation machine size (official competition) and the machine map (official competition rate) within the range of 30 to 70%. Thus, the invention No. 13 of this case is determined to be denied by the cited invention No. 3.

H. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of this case

The instant Claim No. 14 invention is one of the subordinate inventions of paragraphs 1 through 13 of this case, and is added to and limited to the composition of “electric chemical elements”, which is the characteristics of preventing the separation of inorganic multiples as referred to in paragraphs 1 through 13 of this case’s / an electric chemical elements, which are the characteristics of preventing the separation of inorganics from occurring in any of the elements of paragraph 1 through 13. The instant Claim No. 15 of this case is the subordinate inventions of Claim No. 14 of this case’s Claim No. 15 of this case’s ’electric chemical elements are added to and limited to the composition of “electric chemical elements, which are the main batteries of the instant Claim No. 14 of this case’s 15th invention. Each of the aforementioned additional and limited composition is the specification of Cited Invention 3

'The characteristics of this invention are to include non-water sprinkers for second cell batteriess. In this context, this invention's batteries are corresponding to "the composition used in Lithium batteries batteries batteries, which was entered in the description of non-water sphere identification number [027] among evidence 3-1]."

In preparation for this, each of the above added and limited composition is identical to that of comparable invention 3 in that it is used as an electrical chemical operator, such as Lithium off batteries, and thus, it is determined that the newness is denied by each of the comparable inventions 14 and 15 inventions in this case is also denied by each of the comparable inventions 3.

I. Paragraph 16 of this case

The instant Claim 16 invention is a stage of manufacturing high molecular solution by melting the high molecular powder in the paper; (b) adding and mixing the high molecular solution in the stage of (a); and (c) mixing one or more areas selected from the Gun comprising part of the base body among the surface and description of the separation wall in polyslefin column, which include (b) painting and drying and drying of one or more areas selected from the base body in the stage of (c) mixing with the combination of (b), and it is determined that the combination of the instant Claim 3 is substantially denied by the combination of Invention 1 to 3, as described in the instant Claim 1 to 3, since it is determined that there is a new structure established by the combination of Invention 1 to 3, as described in the instant Claim 3.

(j) Sub-decisions

In full view of the contents examined above (a) through (i) above, all of the inventions described in paragraphs (1) through (16) of this case is denied by comparable inventions 3, so the registration should be invalidated.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the trial decision of this case, which was accepted by the defendant's appeal, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Datho

Judges are well-known

2) The diameter of the hole [htp: / cred. naver.com / zh/ Erysrys] in diameter [41197]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.