B. Criteria for determining whether a device falls under the scope of the right of a utility model

(b) If a device falls within the scope of the right of a utility model, it shall be compared not only to a technical device such as the shape, structure or combination of articles that can be used for industrial purposes, but also to the practical value of the device and the operational effects such as the purpose of its use;

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the device of this case and (a) of this case were installed on the upper part of the studs (2) which is composed of a studs (3), the court below determined that the studs (1) of this case were installed on the upper part of the studs (2) so that the studs (1) can be removed from the upper part of the studs (4), and that the studs (61) of this case were installed on the upper part of the studs of the studs (2) and the studs (4) can be removed from the upper part of the studs of the studs (2) so that the studs of this case were installed on the upper part of the studs and the studs of the studs and the studs of this case can be removed from the upper part of the 2nds of the studs (1).

In light of the above scope of rights of the device of this case as recognized by the court below, the theory that the formation of a heating room between the female body and the oil tank is an essential point of the device cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

In addition, the scope of the right to the professional engineer of a registered utility model should be examined on the basis of the scope of the request for registration in light of the provisions of Article 8(2) of the Utility Model Act, which provides that the scope of the request for registration shall be specified in the application for registration of a utility model (see Supreme Court Decision 82Hu12, Jul. 13, 1982). The original trial decision did not recognize the scope of the request for registration of the device of this case as the scope of the device of this case, in comparison with subparagraph (a), it cannot be said that it affected the result of the trial decision.

Furthermore, if a device falls within the scope of the right of a utility model, it is necessary to compare not only the technical device such as the shape, structure, or combination of goods available for industrial purposes, but also the practical value of the device and its operational effects such as its purpose of use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Hu38, Sept. 25, 1984). As a result, in comparison with the original decision, if (a) the device is easily carried out from the device in this case if there is a person with ordinary knowledge in the art, as well as the difference between the heat room, one of the main parts of the device in this case, and the degree of difference between the body and the oil tank installed, the device in this case can be easily carried out, and it is recognized that there is a special rapid action effect due to the deletion or modification of the composition, and thus, it is just to determine that the device falls within the scope of the right of the device in this case. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Utility Model

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)