[2] Whether the invention can be deemed publicly notified solely on the fact that the content of the invention is inserted in the materials for technology transfer education distributed to a specific person who bears a contractual or customary duty to maintain confidentiality (negative)

[3] In a case where a patentee participated in the "ship hold system construction project" bid of the Korea Coast Guard and won a successful bid, and developed the system of comparable invention 1 against public officials of the Korea Coast Guard while educating the Korea Coast Guard about the system use method, etc., and distributed guidelines for users of the ship hold-up system of comparable invention 1, the case holding that the aforementioned comparable invention 1 was distributed only to a specific person who is under the duty of confidentiality, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the patent invention under the name of the "ship hold-up system" was known before the patent application

[4] The case holding that the inventive step is not denied on the ground that the ordinary technician could not easily derive the composition from comparable invention 2 in the course of a registration invalidation trial on a patented invention named "ship hold a system" and the corrected patent claim claim(a corrected invention) is corrected in the course of a registration invalidation trial on the patented invention named "ship hold a system"

[2] The fact that the contents of an invention are inserted in the materials for technology transfer education distributed to a specific person under a contractual or commercial custom shall not be deemed publicly known.

[3] In a case where the Korea Coast Guard promoted "the business of building a ship cover system" to automated the existing non-effective port management system and announced a public announcement, and the patentee developed the comparable invention 1 system with a successful bid, and educates the public officials of the Korea Coast Guard using the aforementioned system with the system using the system, and distributed the ship cover system users guidelines with comparable invention 1 in the name of the Korea Coast Guard to use them as materials for the above education, the case holding that the above comparable invention 1 was distributed only to the specific person who is under the duty of confidentiality, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the aforementioned comparable invention 1 was known prior to the application of the patented invention under the name of the "ship cover system"

[4] The case holding that, in the course of a registration invalidation trial on a patented invention named "ship hold system", the invention described in the claims corrected by correcting the scope of claims, etc. of the above patented invention and the technical field are identical to that of the comparable invention 2, but the composition of the comparable invention 2, which is corresponding to each composition, is merely merely the form of the device or system, and does not have any organic connection, and it cannot be seen that the ordinary skilled person can easily derive the composition of the above corrected invention that is systematically combined with its elements, and thus, the above corrected invention is deemed to have difficulty of composition compared to the comparable invention 2, and its nonobviousness is not denied by the comparable invention 2

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Patent invention of this case

(1) Invention title: Ship hold system

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: January 11, 2007/ June 20, 2007/0732710

(3) Patent holder: the plaintiff;

(4) The scope of claims and drawings: the scope of claims and major drawings of the patented invention of this case are as shown in the annex 1.

(b) Cited inventions;

(1) Invention 1 (A, No. 6, No. 1)

The comparisond Invention 1 is indicated in the “Korea Coast Guard”, and “ship Free-Pass System User Guidelines,” the preparation date of which is “1 November 2006,” and the main technology and drawings are as indicated in the technical content and drawings of comparable inventions 1, as indicated in the annex 2, and as indicated in the main drawing.

(2) Cited Invention 2 (A, No. 7, No. 2)

Invention 2 is written in the “written request for proposal for the construction of a vessel Free-Pass System,” which is named as “the information service office of the Korea Coast Guard,” and “the time of preparation, May 2006,” and its main technical contents and drawings are the same as the description of the technology and the main drawings of the comparable Invention 2 attached hereto 3.

(3) Cited Invention 3 (No. 4)

Invention 3 is related to “the method and system of tracking the location for offshore vessels using a short-wave radio communication” inserted in the Domestic Patent Gazette 2006-0107594, published on October 16, 2006, and the main technology and drawings are as indicated in the technical content and drawings of comparable inventions 3 and the main drawings of comparable inventions 4.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

(1) On October 18, 2007, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the registration of the instant patented invention with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, on the ground that there is no inventive step, since a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the instant patented invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) could easily make an invention from comparable inventions 1, 2, etc.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to correct the scope of the patent application of the instant patent invention, as described in the No. 1-B among the scope of the patent application and the main drawings of the instant patent invention on March 24, 2008.

(3) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the above case on the invalidation of registration as No. 2007Dada2890, and tried to determine that the cited invention 1 was publicly known prior to the filing of the application, and on March 24, 2008, the Plaintiff’s request for correction was legitimate, and then rendered a trial ruling citing the Defendant’s request for trial on the ground that the corrected invention in the patent claim (hereinafter “the corrected invention in this case” and “the corrected invention in the same manner as “the corrected invention in this case” in the case of classification by each claim is denied by comparable invention 1 and 2, etc.

2. Issues of the instant case

The Plaintiff asserts that the invention 1 and 2, which was publicly known prior to the filing of the instant patent application, is not an invention publicly known prior to the filing of the instant patent application, and even if the invention was publicly known as cited invention 1 and 2, the instant corrected invention is not denied from the cited invention. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant corrected invention 1 and 2, prior to the filing of the instant patent application, is an invention publicly known prior to the instant patent application, and the instant corrected invention can easily be made by a person with ordinary skills, and thus, has no inventive step (the parties do not dispute as to the legitimacy of the request for correction made on March

Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether comparable inventions 1 and 2 were publicly known prior to the application of the instant patent invention, and whether the instant corrected invention is denied by comparable inventions.

3. Whether the comparable invention 1 and 2 are publicly notified prior to the filing of the patent application of this case

A. Criteria for determination

Article 29(1) of the Patent Act provides that "an invention which has industrial applicability and is published in a publication published inside or outside the Republic of Korea prior to the filing of a patent application or published in a publication published in the Republic of Korea or in a foreign country prior to the filing of a patent application, or made available to the public through telecommunication lines prescribed by Presidential Decree, may be patentable for the invention." Article 29(2) of the Patent Act provides that "an invention which, prior to the filing of a patent application, is published in a publication published inside or outside the Republic of Korea prior to the filing of a patent application by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, or published in a publication published inside or outside the Republic of Korea prior to the filing of a patent application, or made easily possible by the one made available to the public through telecommunication lines prescribed by Presidential Decree, the invention shall not be patentable, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)." Article 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act provides that "the term "the telecommunication line line prescribed by Presidential Decree in Article 29(1)2 of the Patent Act is a foreign research institution or public corporation designated and publicly notified by the Korean or foreign public."

Here, the term "official" means an invention conducted in a state where many and unspecified people can recognize the content of the invention at least, even though it is not necessarily necessary to recognize the content of the invention, and the term "patently implemented" means an invention conducted in a state where many and unspecified people can know the content of the invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu3012, Dec. 22, 2000). The term "publication published" refers to a publication in a state where many and unspecified general public can recognize the content of the invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Hu19, Jun. 14, 196).

In addition, the fact that the contents of the invention are inserted in the materials for technology transfer education distributed to a specific person who bears the duty of confidentiality under contractual or commercial customs cannot be said to be publicly known (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu2218, Feb. 18, 2005, etc.).

B. Specific determination

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 8, 9, and evidence No. 3-3.

(A) The Korea Coast Guard (Korea Coast Guard) has used the management ledger prepared to control the entry and departure of ships by the police officers or the administrators of police units or branch offices of the competent port of entry and departure control office and the competent coast guard station for the purpose of identifying and controlling illegal fishing vessels, etc. of foreign countries and maintaining maritime security, and has used the management ledger prepared to control the entry and departure of ships by the police officers or branch offices of the competent port of entry and departure control office and the competent coast guard station for the purpose of maintaining maritime security (a.e., a kind of identification card verifying the identity of Korean fishing vessel).

(B) The control of entry into and departure from a ship in accordance with the above manual procedures is: (a) when a fisherman reports to a port of entry into or departure from a port for fishing operations, the control station shall record the departure time in the vessel’s port of entry report register, record the crew on the vessel’s port of entry and permit departure from the port of entry; and (b) when a fisher installs a vessel identification signal board and makes an entry report to the vessel’s port of entry after conducting operation, the control office conducts a simple safety inspection, and then retrieves the vessel identification signal board and permits entry into or departure from the port of entry (i.e., the identification number of the No. 4).

(C) Therefore, the ship's entry into and departure from port through the existing manual procedure has a problem that the ship could set the departure time due to the close, and the ship could set the departure time. In addition, in the case of a small-type ship, there was no means to request rescue in emergencies or distress without providing the radio communication means, and there was no problem that the procedure for taking measures against it was insufficient (No. 4).

(D) In early 2006, the Korea Coast Guard established a radio communication system that can manage small ships in real time, and promoted the “ship Free-PS system construction project” that establishes a comprehensive system that can automated the entry and departure management of small ships in order to contribute not only to improving the quality of fishing service by automation the existing non-effective entry and departure management system, but also to promptly rescue the lives and property of the people by using the advanced tracking system when the marine accident occurred, but also to support the increase in fishermen’s income and safety operation activities through the protection of fish stocks by identifying and controlling illegal fishing vessels in advance (i.e., the request for proposal of evidence No. 7).

(E) According to the aforementioned implementation of the “ship Free-Pass System Construction Project” by the Korea Coast Guard, the Incheon Regional Procurement Agency, around June 2006, published a notice of the notice No. 2006-14752-00, which is an online integrated national electronic procurement system, on the Incheon Regional Procurement Agency’s tender notice of “ship Free-Pass System Construction Project” (the Korea Coast Guard: the Korea Coast Guard), and the Plaintiff participated in the said tender and became a successful bidder.

(F) In order to implement the aforementioned “ship Free-Pass System Construction Business”, the Plaintiff developed the system of comparable invention 1, and trained the system usage method against the public officials of the Korea Coast Guard who are using the above system around November 2006. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s No. 6 (No. 1, ship Free-Ps System User Guidelines) with which comparable invention 1 is initiated, was prepared in the name of the Korea Coast Guard to be used as material for the above education on November 2006, and distributed only to the participants.

(사) 또한, 비교대상발명 2가 개시되어 있는 갑 제7호증(을 제2호증, 선박 Free-Pass 시스템 구축 입찰공고서 및 제안요청서)은 위 ㈒의 ‘선박 Free-Pass 시스템 구축 사업’을 입찰에 부치기 위한 규격서의 용도로 2006. 5.경 작성되었고, 2006. 6.경 인천지방조달청 내자 공고 제200606-14752-00호 공고서에 규격서로서 첨부되어 ‘나라장터’에 게재된 것이다.

(h) The aforementioned “ship Free-Pass System Construction Project” is a system development, supply, and construction project, and the contents of the terms and conditions of the project, “patents for the use of this system (patents, etc.) shall have the right at the Korea Coast Guard” (Article 26 of the written request for proposal of evidence No. 7), and “the proposer shall maintain confidentiality as well as any information related to the maritime police administration obtained in relation to the tender proposal, even after the period of the tender, and shall assume all civil and criminal responsibilities upon the occurrence of a security incident due to the leakage of information (Article 26 of the written request for proposal of evidence No. 7).

(i) On the other hand, Article 29 of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) Contract, which applies to the purchase of goods (manufacture) contract between the Plaintiff and the Korea Coast Guard as a result of the said successful bid, provides that “The ordering agency may reproduce, use, or disclose all or part of the various reports, information, other data, and technical knowledge acquired therefrom, which the other party to the contract submits under the provisions of the contract, for the benefit of the ordering agency after obtaining approval from the other party to the contract (Paragraph (1). The other party to the contract shall not divulge any information acquired through the contract in question or any confidential information of the State, which are all acquired through the contract in question, to the outside after and after the execution of the contract (Article 29 of the evidence No. 9).”

(차) 원고는 위 ㈓의 시스템 사용법 교육을 실시할 때에, 교육참석자들로 하여금 ‘소속, 계급, 성명’을 기재하고 서명을 하도록 한 교육참석자 명단을 작성하여 관리하였다.

(k) A evidence No. 6, in which comparable invention 1 is initiated, contains a number of descriptions of personal information, including the name of the actual vessel, the name, address, and contact information of the owner and the crew on board, in addition to the technical content of the invention.

(2) Determination as to whether comparable invention 1 is publicly known

(5) The Korea Coast Guard, which is an institution in charge of the business of establishing the Korea Coast Guard, has the intent to obtain patents or utility model rights related to the use of the aforementioned system from the initial bid to provide the aforementioned service. In addition, the term “ship Fre-Pass System” basically means a system for identifying and controlling foreign fishing vessels, etc., and for maintaining maritime security, it seems inappropriate for the Korea Coast Guard to disclose the technical content of the aforementioned system to the general public as well as the technical content of the aforementioned system under the Korea Coast Guard to ensure that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to comprehensively disclose the technical content of the aforementioned system to obtain convenience from the construction of the above system by using the transmission apparatus, and thus, it is difficult for the Korea Coast Guard to comprehensively disclose the technical content of the aforementioned system to the public as well as the technical content of the aforementioned system under the Korea Coast Guard to ensure that the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the technical content of the aforementioned system to the public officials of the Korea Coast Guard, as well as the technical content of the aforementioned system under the Korea Coast Guard’s provision.

As to this, the defendant argues that the evidence No. 6 is the same as the manual or product description provided to the user, and there is no indication that the content is "in the form of "in the country of foreign service" or "in the process of secret treatment", and since the public officials of the Korea Coast Guard who received the evidence No. 6 as education participants are general users and are not in the position to bear the duty of confidentiality, comparable invention No. 6 is publicly announced through the publication and distribution of the evidence No. 6.

However, as seen above, although the Plaintiff educatings the contents of comparable invention 1 using the evidence No. 6, and all participants of education subject to the distribution of the evidence No. 6 are public officials belonging to the Korea Coast Guard who bear the duty of confidentiality, as well as those who need to be treated as confidential and expected to be treated as Gap evidence No. 6, even though the evidence No. 6 has the same character as the manual or product description provided to the user, or there is no indication that "the use of the evidence No. 6 requires to be treated as confidential" or "the use of the content," it cannot be deemed that the use of the evidence No. 6 was publicly announced through the publication and distribution of the evidence No. 1, and thus, the Defendant's above assertion based on the different premise cannot be accepted.

Next, the defendant asserts that Article 29 of the Gap evidence No. 9 is merely a provision that imposes the duty of confidentiality on the plaintiff, who is the other party to the contract, and therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the Korea Coast Guard, which is the ordering agency, bears the duty of confidentiality, and that it is merely a "voluntary provision" to allow the ordering agency to use technical knowledge with the approval of the other party to the contract

However, Article 29 (1) of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) Agreement is a provision imposing confidentiality by allowing an ordering agency to disclose technical information submitted by the other party to the contract when disclosing the technical information submitted by the other party to the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7916, Jul. 9, 2009). Thus, the defendant's assertion that is premised on a different view is not acceptable.

In addition, the defendant asserts that Gap evidence 6 is of the same nature as the manual or product description provided to the user, so it is naturally used for the benefit of the purchaser of the goods (system) and is disclosed accordingly, and that such use and disclosure are in accordance with the original contents of the goods contract. Thus, it is the same as "the use of manual or product description by obtaining the consent of the other party to the contract" that "the use of the manual or product description by obtaining the consent of the other party to the contract would result in the seller's approval at the time of use (use) of the goods for which the right to manage and dispose of the goods has already been already transferred." Thus, the order-placing agency as stipulated in Article 29 (1) of the General Conditions of the Goods Purchase Contract for the Goods Purchase (Manufacture) does not constitute "all reports,

However, there is no basis to interpret that documents, such as Gap evidence 6, which clearly explain the technical content as above, do not correspond to "any report, information, and other data submitted by the contracting parties" and "technical knowledge acquired therefrom" under Article 29 (1) of the General Conditions for the Purchase of Goods (Manufacture) contract. Moreover, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, based on a different view, since the plaintiff developed the comparable invention 1's system for the purpose of performing the "ship Free-PS System Construction Project" as awarded by the plaintiff, and then educated the public officials of the Korea Coast Guard using the above system in the name of the Korea Coast Guard to educate the Korea Coast Guard for the system use and distribute them only to the participants, while educating the public officials of the Korea Coast Guard who are using the above system.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that education around November 2006 using Gap evidence No. 6 was conducted by the plaintiff's duty to conduct education in accordance with the conditions of business implementation, and that it is intended to explain all necessary matters for the smooth operation of the system and emergency measures, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is premised on the duty to maintain confidentiality of the participants, and rather, it is premised on the open use or operation of the system.

However, according to Gap evidence 7, the contents of the above "ship Free-Pass System Construction Project" are as follows: "In order to provide sufficient knowledge about the system installed by the operating personnel of the Korea Coast Guard without the contractor's support to provide sufficient information about the operation of all systems and emergency measures, etc., the contractor shall submit a training plan for the system's manager. The responsibilities for system education shall be borne by the contractor, the contractor shall be prepared and the contractor shall bear all the expenses." (Article 30-31 of the request for proposal of evidence 7). However, it can be acknowledged that the above education is imposed on the plaintiff. However, just because the above education is imposed on the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the above education is not premised on the duty to maintain confidentiality of the participants, or that it is based on the public use or operation of the system widely. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted as well under the premise that the contents of the system should be widely disclosed to the general public (or the National Coast Guard or the Korea Coast Guard).

Meanwhile, on October 16, 2006, the Defendant asserted that comparable invention 1 is an invention publicly known or publicly implemented prior to the filing of the patent invention of this case, since the Korea Coast Guard conducted the system of comparable invention 1 for more than 5,300 vessels by the Korea Coast Guard, conducted the satisfaction survey for fishermen, and conducted a system inspection jointly with the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

According to the evidence No. 3-1, the Korea Coast Guard’s electronic newspaper No. 123, Oct. 16, 2006, which was the electronic newspaper of the Korea Coast Guard. The Korea Coast Guard developed the automatic ship display tag, which is the automatic reporting system, and operated the demonstration on a scale of 5,300 vessels within the Incheon Coast Guard and the Young Maritime Police Station around July 2006. The ship display tag is a system that can freely display an electronic tag (RFI) with the unique IMO on all vessels subject to entry and departure from port and arrival without reporting their departure from port and arrival. The Korea Coast Guard conducted a survey on satisfaction with fishermen’s participation on August 2, 2006, and it can not be deemed that the aforementioned system’s implementation of the aforementioned system’s implementation of the inspection or the aforementioned article’s implementation of the system’s implementation of the inspection or the aforementioned article’s implementation of the system’s implementation of the inspection or the aforementioned article’s implementation of the system’s implementation of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

In addition, the Defendant asserted that, on January 2, 2007, the electronic newspaper of the Korea Coast Guard, and that the Director of Report on Agency, a civilian, had access to the system of comparable invention 1, the comparable invention 1 is an invention publicly known or publicly implemented prior to the application of the instant patent invention.

In light of the evidence No. 3-2 of this case’s evidence 1, 2007, “No. 134”, an electronic newspaper of the Korea Coast Guard (Korea Coast Guard) on January 2, 2007, is in operation as of July 2, 2006, 15 branches, and 2,208 fishing vessels in order to pay a device for transmitting the system of ship display (RFD) from around July 2006. The 12 branches within the jurisdiction are in operation with the consent of the village fishing village fraternity, and the civilian notification office was in operation as of the date of the appointment of the civilian notification office with the consent of the village fishing village fraternity, and the captain of the agency notification office completed the duty of vessel entry and departure of other fishing vessels, and lastly, the captain of the agency notification office could not freely recognize that the vessel dispatch system was in operation with another engineer’s prior to the transmission of a new device, and could not be seen as having been in operation with the captain’s notification of the vessel dispatch.

Finally, the Defendant asserts that, based on the evidence No. 3-4, the system of comparable invention 1 was established in the period from July 19, 2006 to December 16, 2006, which was prior to the filing of the patent application of the instant patent invention, and that, during that period, a number of vicarious reports offices within the jurisdiction of the instant patent invention had access to the ship cover system and a PC available for inquiry. Thus, the comparable invention 1 had been placed in a situation where the civilian report office, who was not a public official of the Korea Coast Guard, could recognize the content of the instant patent application.

However, evidence No. 3-4 of the evidence No. 3 cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above assertion. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted ( even if the authenticity of No. 3-4 of the evidence No. 3 is recognized, evidence No. 3-4 of the evidence No. 3 was prepared as of January 15, 2007, after the filing of the application for the patent invention of this case, and published on the Incheon Coast-PS System website in the title "the vessel Free-PS System Construction and Allocation Status" attached thereto, and the document "the vessel Fre-PS System Construction and Allocation Status" of the above information No. 3 was not sufficient to recognize that the civilian's filing of the application for the patent of this case was established before the filing of the patent invention of this case, and the installation of the vessel Fre-PS system was not sufficient to ascertain the status of the receipt of the report No. 54,254 of the report No. 94 of this case and other information No.

(3) Determination as to whether comparable invention 2 is publicly known

As seen above, as long as the No. 7, where the comparable invention 2 was initiated, was inserted in the “Bater,” which is the online comprehensive national electronic procurement system around June 2006, the prior date of the application for the patent of this case, the comparable invention 2 had already been placed in a state where many unspecified persons can recognize prior to the application for the patent of this case.

Accordingly, the cited invention 2 constitutes an invention publicly known prior to the application of the instant patent invention.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the cited inventions 1 cannot be used as prior art to determine the inventive step of the instant patent invention, because the cited inventions 1 did not have been publicly known prior to the application of the instant patent invention, and the comparable inventions 2 can serve as data to determine the inventive step of the instant patent invention.

4. Whether the inventive step of the corrected invention of this case is inventive

A. Whether the inventive step of the corrective invention under Paragraph (2) of this case is inventive

(i)to prepare for technology and objectives;

Revised Invention 2 and Cited Invention 2 are inventions related to the ship holders system capable of automation and management of ship's departure and entry port (numbered No. 4). Thus, the correction invention of Claim 2 and the comparison invention 2 are inventions belonging to the same technology field. (The first page of the request for proposal of Evidence No. 15>

In addition, the purpose of the instant Claim No. 2 and the instant Claim No. 2 is to manage information on the departure and entry of a ship and to provide a system that can promptly identify and cope with the situation when a marine accident occurred, i.e., prompt identification of the situation at the time of the occurrence of a marine accident (the first page of the proposal letter No. 4), and the instant Claim No. 2 are common for the cited Invention 2 and the instant Claim No. 7.

(2) Preparation for composition and effects

(A) Composition 1, 1-(i) to 1-.m.

1 and 1-1-(1) through 1-1-1 of the instant corrective invention is comprised of the vessel information division (11), the vessel information division (12), the vessel information division (12), the vessel information division (11), and the data composition (13-III), the data composition division (15-4), the data processing unit (15-4), the data processing unit (17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-4-2-3-2-3-2-3-4)-4-15-3-3-3-2-3-15-3-15-3-3-2/19-10-1-1-3-1-1-1-1-1-in-in-in-the-go).

In response, comparable invention 2, a radio transmitter for a ship has the function of Emergency Call, ID, LLI, setting and controlling data transmission time, location data reception chain, location information and time data storage function, the function of setting the storage cycle of data according to the interval defined by the user, and the function of setting the unique IMO for the ship and the length of the radio transmitter for the ship that consists of antenna(20 pages of the request for proposal of evidence A).

However, the cited Invention 2 is merely simply the specifications of the radio transmitter for a ship, and there is no organic connection between the specific technical structure and elements. As such, the structure of response between Section 2, 1, 1-(i) through 1-1, and comparable invention 2, which is systematically combined, is different from the specific structure and function of the response.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the composition of the data composition and the log formation department in the correction invention of Paragraph 2 of this case falls within the category of self-absent technology or the ornamental technology composition, and is included not only in the technical field but also in the comparable invention 2. The composition of the security processing department falls within the category of self-absent technology or the ornamental technology composition, and the composition of the security processing department falls within the scope of the composition of the correction invention of Paragraph 2 of this case 1, 1- (i) through 1-1 of the correction invention of this case.

However, inasmuch as all countermeasures that can be compared with the instant Claim No. 2, which have the function of data processing with the IMO information and location information of a ship and transmitting the receiver after being processed with security, have not been initiated entirely on the cited invention No. 1, 1-(i) through 1-1 of the instant amendment invention, the mere fact that part of the detailed elements constituting such elements are included explicitly or implicitly in the comparable invention No. 2, or constitute widely known and commonly used technology, cannot be deemed to have been easily derived from the cited invention No. 2 of the instant case where only the specifications of the radio transmitter of the instant Claim No. 2 and the widely used art of the radio transmitter of the ship are simply and simply simply simple, from the cited inventions No. 1, 1-(i) through 1-1 of the instant amendment invention. Accordingly, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion based on a different view cannot be accepted.

(B) Composition 2

The composition 2 of the instant Claim 2 is the location of a ship transmitted from the transmitting device (10) and the receiving device that processes data using real-time reception of vessel information and vessel distress signals (20).

Accordingly, the cited Invention 2 merely simply simply combines the specifications of the vessel tracking management center system (No. 19 of the proposal letter of evidence No. 7), and does not appear to have an organic connection between the detailed technical composition and components of the receiving device. Since the structure of response to the corrected invention No. 2 of the instant case’s “the location of a ship transmitted from the transmitting device (10) and the composition of a ship’s information and a ship’s distress signal to be received in real time and the function of processing data,” the composition of the two inventions differs from its detailed composition and function.

(C) Composition 3

The composition 3 of the Claim 2 invention of this case is a DB server (30) that notifies the manager of the data processed by transmitting the data processed by the receiver (20) in real time, calculating the location and the distance of movement of the vessel by placing the information on the vessel's location and movement in real time, and automated processing and storing the processed data by placing the port of entry on the basis of calculated data, indicating the processed data, and indicating the processed data when the distress signal is received.

In response, the cited Invention 2 merely simply simply simpponsed up the DB specifications that the small ship cover dB, boarding source information DB, information related to port entry, various statistical information, vessel location information, etc. (No. 22-23 of the A’s proposal request) and does not have an organic connection between the specific technical composition and components of the small ship cover dB, and the corrected invention of this case No. 2 of this case’s correction invention of this case’s “the location and movement distance of ship is calculated, and the ship’s entry port is automatically processed and stored, and the processed data is indicated, and any response composition that can be compared with the “the composition of the function to notify the manager upon receipt of the distress signal” of the processed data is not initiated in comparable inventions 2. Therefore, the aforementioned structure and function of both inventions are different.

(3) Preparation results

The instant Claim 2’s corrective invention is identical to the cited invention 2 and the technical field, while the purpose of which is common, the composition of the comparable invention 2, responding to each of the respective elements constituting the invention, is merely limited to the composition of the device or system, and does not have any organic connection, and thus, it cannot be deemed that an ordinary skilled person can easily derive the composition of the instant Claim 2’s corrective invention that is systematically combined with the elements thereof.

Therefore, the amendment invention of Paragraph 2 of this case is recognized as the complexity of composition compared to the comparable invention 2, and its nonobviousness is not denied by the comparison invention 2.

B. Whether the inventive step of the corrective invention in the Nos. 3 and 4 of this case is inventive

The invention of this case Nos. 3 and 4 is limited to the subordinate claim of the corrective invention of this case, and its composition is limited. Thus, the inventive step of the above invention is not automatically denied unless the inventive step of the corrective invention of this case No. 2 is denied.

C. Whether the inventive step of the corrective invention under Paragraph (7) of this case is inventive

The corrective invention of Paragraph 7 of this case includes 1, 2, and 3 of Paragraph 2 of this case. DB servers (30), composed of information log (31), ship confirmation register (32), location calculation register (33), Linman (341), Minman (343), Minman (345), port confirmation register (347), port entry confirmation register (347), port entry management register (35), port entry storage register (36), port entry confirmation register (37), port entry statistics register (39), vessel indication register (39).

In response, the cited Invention 2 contains only simple combinations between DB, boarding source information DB, information related to port entry, various statistical information, vessel location information, etc. (No. 22-23 of the proposal document No. 7), and the detailed technical composition and components of small-type ships DB of the corrected invention No. 7 of this case did not appear at all. 31, vessel confirmation book (32), vessel inspection book (33), port management book (34), port management book (35), port management book (36), vessel inspection book (37), vessel display book (38), vessel display book (39), vessel location and vessel location of the ship, etc., and the manager does not have any specific function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based function-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method-based method.

Meanwhile, in response to the entry and departure confirmation book (341), 345, and 347 (34) of the correction invention of this case, corresponding to the entry and departure confirmation book (347) with the "Rain establishment, port establishment confirmation book (341), port entry confirmation book (343), and port entry confirmation book (34), the comparison invention 3 does not distinguish the GPS data from the location of each ship stored in the S canss ship database (360), and does not constitute the 360 warning of the invention of this case (36) from the piracy indicating the boundary line (e.g., territorial sea, operation area, snare or passenger ship navigation route). However, the comparison invention 3 does not constitute the 37) warning of the invention of this case from the 1963) warning of the invention of this case to the effect that the manager can recognize the data printed out in the 331) table on the piracy (3331) and the 37) warning of the invention of this case from the 3637).

Ultimately, insofar as all countermeasures that can be compared with “the composition of the corrected invention of Section 7 of this case,” is not initiated in comparison with “the structure of the corrected invention of Section 7 of this case,” the manager, on the ground that some of the detailed elements constituting the composition are included in comparable inventions 2 and 3, 33, 34, 35, 35, 36, 37, 37, 38, 39, 39, 37, 37, 39, 400, 37 can not be easily derived from the combination of comparable inventions 2 and 37.

Therefore, the instant Claim 7’s corrective invention is recognized as the complexity of composition compared to the cited inventions 2 and 3. Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 7 is not denied by comparable inventions 2 and 3.

5. Conclusion

If so, the trial decision of this case refers to the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation because it is unlawful to conclude this conclusion.

[Attachment 1] Claims and Major Drawings of the Patented Invention of this case: omitted

[Attachment 2] The technical content and main drawings of comparable Invention 1: omitted

Judges Kim Yong-con (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge)