[2] The case holding that although the request for correction of a patented invention on "Spanish and Concluding Pinland" is lawful due to a correction of a simple clerical error, the patented invention after the correction is deemed to have no inventive step compared with the cited inventions since the combined invention with the invention, its purpose, composition, and operational effects are substantially identical to the invention after the correction

[2] The case holding that although a request for correction of a patented invention on "Spanish and Concluding Pin," which is lawful due to a correction of a simple clerical error, the patented invention after the correction is deemed to have no inventive step compared to the cited inventions, since the combined invention and its purpose, composition, and operational effects are substantially identical to the invention combined with the cited inventions

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the right holder of the instant patent invention with the following content.

(1) Name of invention: Spanish and conclusion pin in the basin of the basin pumps panel fry.

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: June 27, 1994/ October 13, 1997/No. 126152

(3) Claims: Attached Form 1.

B. The Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that the scope of the patent application for the instant patent invention, which was corrected by the Plaintiff as to “Spanish spanch, and fin, of the Hep panel,” is unclear subject to protection. The instant patent invention is identical with the cited Invention 1, 2, and 3 as indicated in attached Table 2, and thus its registration should be invalidated because it is easily possible to make an invention from such invention, and thus its registration should be invalidated. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the instant patent invention as the case No. 2002Da2731, Apr. 9, 2004, and made it clear that the correction of the instant patent invention constitutes a case where a clerical error is corrected or ambiguous, and thus, the correction request was lawful without determination as to whether the patent can be granted at the time of filing the patent application (the patent application after the correction is lawful). However, the corrected patent application of this case should not be invalidated, but the Plaintiff’s patent application of this case should have no inventive step compared with the cited Invention 1, 2, and 3.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

A. The trial decision on the legitimacy of the correction was erroneous.

Of the matters for which the plaintiff's request for correction, the phrase "if the correction is made, the correction" under Article 47 (3) 2 of the Patent Act refers to "if the correction is made, the matters described in the claim after correction must be "if the patent application is made, the correction shall be patentable at the time of the filing of the patent application" under Article 136 (4) of the Patent Act. Thus, even though the trial decision in this case judged that the matters described in the claim after correction are legitimate, the patent shall be patentable at the time of the filing of the patent application, the conclusion that the patented invention in this case shall not be patentable for lack of non-obviousness is inconsistent. If the purport of the trial decision in this case after correction is so that the patent cannot be granted because the claim after correction is not possible, it is unlawful to have provided the plaintiff an opportunity to present his opinion in accordance with Article 136 (5) of the Patent Act, even though it did not go through such procedure.

B. The instant patent invention is non-obviousness compared to comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3.

(1) For purposes:

The patented invention of this case aims to establish a panel accurately at the same time when the length of the wall is reduced by 10 meters or 20 meters in accordance with modern architectural technology, and to enhance the efficiency of construction by combining the inside and outside of the wall with the panel. However, comparison invention 1 and 3 aim to prevent the leakage of concrete by filling the crebs generated at the connection between the panel and the panel without any special means, and comparison invention 2 aims to fix a large number of Utillers used to provide a structure of concrete collection with a tension. Thus, the purpose of the patented invention of this case is to distinguish between the patented invention of this case and the comparable inventions of this case from the cited inventions of this case.

(2) In organizing

1. As to a strawing method, the patented invention of this case is capable of maintaining sufficient force at the time of inserting concrete into a straw, by combining it with the panel or inside and outside the wall of this case, and maintaining concrete mixtures inside and outside the straw, whereas comparable invention 1 connects straws which are connected with unstandard straws (10) and connected with straws (unit, 10) within and outside the wall of this case, and connects 3 straws of comparable invention with 3 straws (15 straw, 37 straws) and then combining it with 3 straws of comparable invention to support it again, the combination of 42 straws of comparable invention of this case is naturally different from 3 straws of comparable invention of this case.

2. As the Spain (11) of the instant patented invention reduces by 10 meters or 20 meters the thickness of the wall on the high-rise building, it is standardized at 10 meters to be suitable for modern construction methods in which a certain size space space is formed between the pump panel. On the part of the panel, the essential part (15) which is capable of inserting a panel formed inside and outside the wall is formed at a certain location and form. On the other hand, the comparable invention 1 is a combination of two parts (14) of the instant patented invention without the same composition as the essential part (15) of the instant patented invention, and is connected to the interior and outside part (17) of the instant patented invention, and is not equipped with the panel at least 15 square meters, and is not equipped with the panel’s thickness for the purpose of 15th (16th) and the panel’s thickness for the purpose of 3rd (14th) of the instant patented invention. It is also necessary to establish the panel’s thickness and 17th (16th) of the panel.

③ In contrast to the specification of the conclusion of the instant patent invention, the tension of comparable invention 2 is not standardized, and the two compositions are different since the tension of comparable invention 2 is not standardized.

(iii)in respect of effects of action:

The patented invention of this case does not require a separate re-production of a different measurement panel in order to reinforce the gaps or error arising from changes in the thickness of the walls at the time of concrete typology. Without the need to re-production of a different measurement panel, the patented invention of this case is effective by raising the efficiency of construction by forming a simple cryp, using the existing spanish panel and oiling panel as it is, and forming the essential part (15) by forming a simple crypypy, using the existing spanch panel and oiling panel, and by forming the core (15), it is difficult to use it at the time when it is not possible to use it in a large quantity or to reduce the manufacturing efficiency of the patented invention at the time of dypology, and even if it is not possible to use it in a large quantity or to reduce the manufacturing efficiency of the patented invention at the time of dypology without any big difference in the manufacturing efficiency at the time of construction.

(4) Prior to the filing of the patent application for the instant patent invention, the Plaintiff, the holder of the right to the instant patent invention, contributed to the improvement of the productivity of the construction site by commercializing the instant patent invention into commercialization of the product and widely distributing the product to various construction sites. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s related products were used without permission in the construction site where the products similar to the instant patent invention were commercialized after the commercial success, the instant patent invention is non-obviousness compared to the cited inventions.

3. Determination

A. The summary of the instant patent invention before and after the correction

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 2 and evidence 4-1 and evidence 4-2, the patented invention of this case is related to Spanish and finland used for Spanish, and it has a problem that, before correction, the patented invention of this case has the same effect as that of the retaining wall of this case, even if it has the same effect as that of the 20 to 30 meters difference between the Moriririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririri (hereinafter referred to as the "Maririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririri"), since it is a standardized standard size between the Maririririririri court and the Malimoririririririri court, which is a new structure of the Maririririririririririri (2).

B. Determination as to whether corrective matters 1 can be corrected

(1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserts to the purport that it is contradictory to the purport that the instant patent invention is not patentable at the time of filing a patent application, which satisfies the requirement that the matters described in the patent claim after the correction fall under “a correction of erroneous description” under Article 47(3)2 of the Patent Act, and that it is not possible to obtain a patent on the grounds that the instant patent invention has no inventive step.

(2) Therefore, Article 133-2 of the Patent Act newly established pursuant to Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 201 provides that the correction of the specification or drawing(s) of the patented invention may be requested only when it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 47(3) of the Patent Act during the patent invalidation trial. Paragraph (3) provides that Article 136(2) through (5), and Article 136(7) through (11) of the Patent Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a correction request. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "the correction of the specification or drawing(s) under paragraph (1) shall not be substantially expanded or modified if the correction of the specification or drawing(s) is not permitted unless the correction is made in accordance with the former provision of Article 47(3)1 (i) and (ii) of the Patent Act."

(3) The return to the instant case and the date of application of the instant patent invention was made on June 27, 1994 before the date of application of Article 133-2 of the Patent Act enters into force. However, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the Addenda of the Patent Act, a new provision shall apply to a request for correction under the invalidation trial procedure relating to the instant patent invention. Accordingly, if the matters for which a request for correction was made fall under Article 47(3)1 (a) and 2 (a case where the scope of a patent claim is reduced) of the Patent Act, in principle, where the matters for which a request for correction was made fall under Article 47(3)1 (a) and (b) of the Patent Act, the requirement of Article 136(4) of the Patent Act should be satisfied.

However, in the scope of the patent claim, 1 is a correction that is a problem in this case, the term "retail (4) for the combined use of the pre-revision as a "retail (4)" can be changed as "retail (4) for the combined use of the pre-revision," and there is no room to regard "retail (4) for the previous and rear context" as "retailing with the meaning of "in the future and rear context," so it is reasonable to see as a correction of a simple clerical error, i.e., it is reasonable to see as a simple correction of a clerical error, and therefore, it should be corrected as a matter of course without any need to examine whether the requirements are met as the object of a correction trial or a request for correction under the Patent Act.

Therefore, the court below held that the correction should be permitted without examining whether the matters described in the claim after the correction are considered as 1's simple error correction, and the correction must be made at the time of filing a patent application, and there is any inconsistency in the judgment that the patented invention in this case should be invalidated due to lack of inventive step. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Whether the patented invention of this case after correction is non-obviousness compared with comparable inventions

(1) Preparation for purposes

After the correction, the purpose of the patented invention in this case is to improve the assembly of cryp by providing Spain (11) at the distance between 1 and the upper floor of the building during construction, even if the thickness of retaining walls differs from that of the same cryp panel (1) and the cryp panel (2), it is reasonable to view that the purpose of the patented invention in this case is not the same as the patented invention in this case after the correction is not specified, but the purpose of the patented invention in this case is to improve the cryp of the patented invention (hereinafter referred to as the “Revised Invention 1”) at the distance of 10 and the cryp panel (hereinafter referred to as the “Cypyp”) at the distance of 10 and the cryp panel (hereinafter referred to as the “Cyp panel”) at the distance of 20, as indicated in the drawing No. 10 and the cryp of the patented invention in this case (hereinafter referred to as the “Cypyp”).

(2) Preparation for composition

(A) After correction, both the patented invention of this case and the comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3 are indicated differently as Spanish (the inventions 1, 2, and 3 are non-intersection 1, 2, and 3 are indicated as "spanish," "spanish," or "spanish," but both of them are similar in terms of regulating the length of Spanish house by cutting it between the panel of Spanish house and the panel of the panel. They are non-intersection 2 and 3, but both of them are indicated as "tension" but they are similar in that they are fixed through Spanish or pen, which is put between the panel and the panel.

(B) In a specific composition, the component 1 of the patented invention of this case after the correction consists of the Spanish (11) which is composed of a large number of pages (15) for the combined use (4) for the conclusion of the contract (15) and the home (16) formed within the above essential part (15) with a large number of essential parts (15) and home (16) identical or similar to the existing basin pumps (16), the height of which is the same as that of the existing basin pumps (1-2) (hereinafter referred to as "part 1-2 of the patented invention of this case"), and the thickness of which is composed of 10 to 30 meters with a 10-meter thickness (11).

First of all, since the components 1-1 are merely the same part (15) and the home (16) with the same technology as that of the existing L-Ced Invention 11 (U.S.) which flows out of the Spain, the composition of the K-C. 1 of the K-S. Invention 1 (15) and the new part (17) of the K-C. Invention 1 of the K-C. Invention 1 (U.S. Invention 18 (19) and the new part (17) of the K-C. Invention 2 of the K-C. Invention 1 of the K-C. Invention 1 (U.S. Invention 1) are composed of the new part (15) and the new part (16) of the K-C. Invention 1 of the K-C. Invention 2 of the K-C. The new part (19a) can not be changed to the new part (17) and the part (16) of the K-C. Invention 1 of the K-C.

Next, components 1-2 do not clearly state the height of the Spanish (11) at the same level as the height of the existing basin pumps (1). The "spanch (15) and spanch (16) of the comparable invention 1, the "spanch (18) of the comparable invention 2, and the "spers (17) of the comparable invention 3" of the comparable invention 1, compared to the adjacent panel. However, although the panel does not clearly state that the height of the spanish (15) should be compared to that of the adjacent panel, it should be the same as the height of the adjacent panel, unless there is any particular purpose to adjust the length of the spanch and prevent the spanished concrete from flowing out of the spanch, each of the elements of the comparable invention 1-2, as well as the height of the adjacent panel, each of the above components of the comparable invention 1-1, 11, 11, and 19, each of the above components are the same.

Furthermore, the component 1-3 is the thickness of 10 meters within the scope of 10 to 30 meters of the Spanish (11). The "spanch (15) and space (16) of the comparable invention 1, the "clider (18) of the comparable invention 2," and the "clider (17) of the comparable invention 3" of the comparable invention 1 does not specify the thickness, but the thickness of 1 is not specified, but the spanch (15) of the comparable invention 2 and the spanch (18) of the comparable invention 1, and the 15th (19) and the spanch (19) of the comparable invention 15th (the thickness) of the comparable invention are substantially the thickness of the 15th (the thickness) and the thickness of the 15th (the thickness) can be determined by 15th) and the thickness of the 15th (the thickness) can be determined by 15th (15th) thickness or 10m of the comparable invention 15th).

(C) After the correction, the component 2 of the instant patent invention is "Fin (12) with multiple alteration holess (13) formed at certain intervals so as to be adequate for the assembly of the Spanish house (1)." The composition of the instant patent invention is the same in that it is not possible to conclude a contract with a number of holess (13) formed at certain intervals so as to be used in the assembly of the Spanish house (11). The structure of the instant patent invention is the same in that there is no longer tensions (15) with the extended slots (13) (14) and multiple balls (17) of comparable invention 2, and the tension (54) with the waV (5) of comparable invention 3, and a number of duness (54) with many duness).

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the tension of comparable invention 2 is different in that the tension of comparable invention 2 is not standardized. However, after the correction, the elements of the patented invention of this case merely stated that "the tension of concluded pin is standardized in a certain amount," but it is only stated that "the tension of concluded pin is formed in a certain distance", and the two elements are the same as that of multiple balls (17) formed at a certain interval on the longer tension of comparable invention 2(15).

Therefore, inasmuch as all the elements of the instant patent invention after the correction are identical to those of comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3 and their composition are substantially identical, and there is no need for special changes in composition to combine the elements corresponding to comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3, and there is no need for special changes in composition. As such, the instant patent invention after the correction cannot be deemed as having difficulty in composition compared to the cited inventions 1, 2, and 3.

(iii)Preparation for operational effects;

After the correction, the patented invention of this case, as described in the detailed explanation column, means to improve assembly by assembling it with the existing maternal panel (2) without a need to produce a separate maternal panel (2), even in the case where the thickness of the retaining wall is reduced, and to reduce the harmful effects of time loss, etc. due to the reproduction of the maternal panel (2)" (see evidence No. 4-2, No. 7-2, No. 10, and No. 12-1, No. 2, and No. 3 of the patented invention of this case, the patented invention of this case, after the correction, also contains the same composition as the constituent elements of the patented invention of this case after the correction, shall have the same effect as that of the patented invention of this case, after the correction.

On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that the effects of the patented invention of this case are different from those of the comparable invention 1, 2, and 3 merely merely merely simply stiffling the gap caused by the error in the scambling or maintaining the wall. On the other hand, the main part (15) of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the main part (15) of the patented invention of this case") is able to inserting the scam (4) so that the space of other (4) combined with the scambling panel and the scambling (4) is formed to prevent the leakage of concrete, and it serves as a rare role in preventing the leakage of concrete as a space as compared with the thickness between the scambling panel and the scambling (4). As seen earlier, the action effects of the patented invention of this case are different from those of the comparable invention 1, but it is not reasonable to form the same effect as the previous design change (15).

(4) Ultimately, the instant patent invention following the correction is substantially identical to the invention consisting of comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3, and its purpose, composition, and function effects. Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is nonexistent compared to the comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the patented invention of this case was non-obviousness compared to the comparable inventions because it has commercial success, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the commercial success alleged by the plaintiff is based on the technical characteristics of the invention described in the claim of this case, and is not caused by any factors other than technical characteristics of the invention, such as sales technology, publicity and advertising technology, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

(d) Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's request for correction is lawful, but the patented invention of this case after correction has no inventive step compared to the comparable invention 1, 2, and 3, and the decision of this case is justified.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)