2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3]

A. Patent invention of this case

(1) Name: High-grade low pressure light source and operating method thereof.

(2) Date of application (date of international application)/ Date of priority claim: March 25, 1997 ( July 18, 1996)/ September 15, 1995; and the date of priority claim. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14486, Mar. 27, 1996>

(3) Date of registration/patent number: October 4, 2002/ No. 356960

(4) A patentee: Defendant

⑤ Summary of the patented invention of this case and the scope of the claim (which is based on the correction request dated May 2, 2007)

The patented invention of this case is related to electric lamps lamps, composed of electric lamps, which are applied by the electromagnetic derived derived derived principle without a voltage. It is related to setting the air exhaust gas pressure within the discharge lamps to not more than 0.5 tor (0.67mbar) and setting the discharge current to not less than 2 tor, thereby significantly reducing the loss of Puccoin. The claims and drawings are as shown in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 1”). The claims and drawings are as indicated in attached Table 1.

B. Added Invention (No. 4, May 7, 1991, the Patent Gazette No. 5013975, and the main drawings are as shown in attached Form 2).

The purpose is to provide a longer number of luminous lamps which can provide the desired amount of light from the low temperature to the high temperature of gas 10, as “unexploded 2 or less,” which includes erode 10, e.g., c. c. 2 or c. c. m. c. c. m. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.

C. The procedural background

(1) On December 14, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a petition against the Defendant for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant patent invention on the grounds that the instant patent invention has no inventive step compared with the prior art, and the Defendant filed a petition for correction of the specification and drawing(s) of the instant patent invention on May 2, 2007.

(2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the patented invention as No. 2006Da32666, and recognized correction by the above correction request on September 11, 2007. The patented invention of this case dismissed the above patent invalidation trial on the grounds that the patented invention of this case has inventive step compared with the prior art.

(3) The parties concerned are not dissatisfied with the legitimacy of the correction in the revocation suit of the instant trial decision, and thus, the parties concerned determine the inventive step based on the corrected claims.

2. Determination as to whether the patent invention of this case is defective or irrecoverable for industrial purposes

A. Whether the specification of the patented invention of this case is incomplete

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the scope of the value of the buffer gas pressure and electric current stated in the claim(s) of the instant patent invention is not supported by the detailed description or drawings of the instant patent invention, but does not contain sufficient information to understand that the correlation between low buffer gas pressure and high voltage currents occurred with the pertinent patent invention. The Plaintiff asserts that the scope of the value of the buffer gas pressure and electric current stated in the claim(s) of the instant patent invention is not supported by the detailed description or drawings of the instant patent invention, and that the drawings constitute non-statements, not intentionally

(2) Determination

According to the claim scope of the patented invention of this case, the patented invention of this case has characteristics of less than 0.5 topherr gas pressure and not less than 2 amper current value. Considering that the detailed description of the invention contains a high level of gas pressure of less than 0.5 topherr and a high level of gas pressure of not less than 2 amper and a high level of dust current of not less than 2 amper than 2,00, it is stated that it generates adequate performance (such as evidence Nos. 5, 8, 20 to 9). Also, it is desirable to reduce the level of heat pressure of the patented invention by simply increasing the discharge capacity of the patented invention from 0.5 to 00 to 20.5 to 200 tophere gas pressure of the patented invention from 0.5 to 20 tophere gas pressure of the patented invention from 0.5 to 20 tophere gas pressure of the patented invention from 20 tophere.

(b) Whether it is an invention impossible to realize the industry;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the buffer gas pressure from which the voltage begins at the minimum voltage is 0.15 tor, and that, in the case of lamps in which the buffer gas pressure below this value is injected, the voltage does not start fundamentally. Since the patented invention of this case is written by the buffer gas pressure below 0.5 tor, it is impossible to realize it.

(2) Determination

However, the patented invention of this case is described in its claims as "a dumpless lamps, including closed lamps in which mercury steam and burner gas are sealed," and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit under the premise that there is no buffer gas pressure (as stated in the evidence No. 13, pure number of the patented invention of this case, which does not emit gas from the dump is commenced even to steam, according to the statement in the evidence No. 13). Accordingly, the patented invention of this case cannot be deemed as a technology which is impossible to realize, and the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

3. Determination on the non-obviousness of the patented invention of this case

A. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

(1) Preparation for purposes

The Claim 1 invention of this case is related to electric lamps, including the spulp lamps, with the purpose of achieving the lamps with high discharge current which reduces columbing damage by combining the high discharge current with the low air gas pressure. However, the comparable invention is seeking to provide a longer spulp lamps with a high spulbing splate which can use an efficient spulbing gas generated in a sealed splate and provide the desired light within the range of a high temperature from a low temperature to a high temperature, and the comparable invention does not recognize the specific purpose of the Claim 1 invention of this case, which is intended to achieve a high light output while reducing the spulbing damage. Thus, the purpose of the Claim 1 invention of this case is different from the invention of this case.

(2) Preparation for composition and action effects

(A) Composition of Claim 1 invention of this case

The Claim 1 invention of this case contains “No. 10 m. 10 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 2(hereinafter “m. 2”) m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 2(hereinafter “m. 3”) m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m.

(B) Composition 1

In light of the form of a closed bag, the composition of comparable inventions corresponding thereto is different from each other. In the instant Claim 1 invention, the route of the discharge is relatively small and relatively low, and the route of the discharge is almost the same form and length. However, in the comparable invention, the form and length of the discharge route are different from each other, and the upper and lower part of the discharge route are rarely not generated. Accordingly, in the instant Claim 1 invention, the number of mines equal from the upper and lower part of the discharge system in light of the waste discharge route is almost nearly low in the upper and lower part of the discharge system. However, in the instant Claim 1 invention, there is a difference between the upper part of the discharge system and the lower part of the discharge system, and subsequent to the discharge system, there is a difference in the inner color of the discharge system.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the difference between the comparison invention and the composition 1 of the instant patent invention can be easily overcome. According to the evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff asserts that the difference between the comparison invention and the instant patent invention can be easily overcome. According to the evidence No. 14, with respect to the electric voltage discharge devices such as: (a) the electric voltage discharge devices that make the discharge electric current to be flown at the same time; (b) the part of the electric light (1) was installed; (c) the increased customs unit (2) was installed; and (d) the customs unit (3) was established in the customs unit (2) where the steel trial (3) for forming a person under self-speed. However, as seen later, the instant Claim No. 1 invention of this case was embodied into a specific figure of the buffer gas pressure and electric current; and (d) the Patent Office or the Patent Office did not start any way to realize it.

(C) Composition 2

Composition 2 is a transformerr, including a paint material, while the comparable invention does not include a paint, so the two compositions are different since the comparable invention does not include a paint.

The Claim 1 invention of this case is designed to be a Placo, thereby inducing a changeer self-head to the Placo, and inducing the electric site to the Placop by such a changeer self-head. On the other hand, the cited invention does not have a Placo, thereby inducing a changeer self-head to the inside and outside of the Placop, and thus, the electric site is induced by the inside head of the Placop, which corresponds to some part of the entire part, by the inside head of the Placop.

(C) Composition 3,4

Composition 3, which is a unit of input right line, is the key point of inducing comparable inventions (13) and the composition of high frequency source of comparable inventions (14), which is composed of 4 high frequency source of comparable inventions, is the high frequency source of comparable inventions (14).

(D) Composition 5

Composition 5 consists of a gas pressure of less than 0.5 tor and a current of electric current of more than 2 ambimer;

1) First, examining the buffer gas pressure, the phenomenon occurring inside the waste discharge lamps and the Gulessless electric lamps due to different discharge routes is different, and the gas discharge phenomenon depends on lamps type, action principle, and the discharge route, etc., and there are different requirements necessary to achieve optimal lighting. However, it is reasonable to view that the gas pressure in the comparable invention contains a statement that the gaseous pressure is 0.3 to 3.0 tor, and that the thermal pressure is less than 0.3 tor, it is relatively difficult to start the discharge, and if the thermal pressure is less than 3.0 tor, it is written that the air discharge is less than 0.3 tor, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the gas pressure has an impact on the start of the discharge and the optical output.

2) Next, the scope of the discharge current of the instant patent invention was selected to reduce the clater loss of the waste lamps. On the other hand, the evidence No. 7 of the instant patent invention contains no commencement of the scope of the discharge current. On the other hand, the composition of the discharge current of which is 0.25 to 1.0 amper, and the discharge current of which is 0.25 to 1.0 amper. However, at the time, the high voltage of the discharge current was lower, and the discharge current was set at a low voltage, and there was a problem of reducing the discharge current from 1 to 20 amper than 1 to 10 amper, which is likely to cause a successful increase in the discharge current of less than 7 amper than 1 to 20 amper. However, the instant patent invention set the problem of reducing the discharge current of the instant patent invention from 7 to 10 amper 1 to 20 amper 1 to 25 amper.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that there is no non-obviousness as it is in accordance with the rules of pulse rules that can be properly selected and implemented by an ordinary skilled person. The instant patented invention is non-obviousness, which is a rule applicable to the voltage in air, and in the case of composition 5, it cannot be derived from the general rules of pulse, because, in general, it is inevitable for gases to install two voltages opposite to each other in air and to voltage in the voltage in the voltage in the voltage, electricity does not flow. However, if the voltage in the voltage between the voltages increases the voltage between the voltages, the heat in air is destroyed, and the voltage in the voltage is determined by the distance between the voltage and the voltage, and if the temperature is specified, the voltage in the beginning of the discharge is determined by the rules of law that are applied to the voltage in the electric light.

4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the technology that enhances the value of the electric current is an known technology in order to reduce co-loss loss based on the evidence No. 5 (written opinion submitted by the Defendant at the examination stage of the instant patent invention). However, the Plaintiff’s increase in the value of the electric current to reduce co-loss loss solely on the Defendant’s written opinion (Evidence No. 5) submitted at the examination stage of the instant patent invention cannot be readily concluded as a publicly known technology prior to the filing date of the priority claim for the instant patent invention.

5) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the gas voltage and electric current stated in the claim(s) of the instant patent invention do not have a critical meaning. Accordingly, the instant Claim(1) invention contains technical characteristics that combines high voltage current with low voltage gas pressure. As long as the instant Claim(s) invention does not contain technical perception and composition that combines low voltage gas pressure with low voltage current, it does not require a dynamic significance of gas pressure and voltage current to achieve inventive step. Even in cases where clinical significance is deemed necessary, the Plaintiff’s 5-burgical significance is limited to the range of 5-burgical gas pressure and voltage current from 0-turgically converted from 1 to 5-turgically converted from 5-turgical heat to 10-turgically converted from 5-turgical converted from 1 to 3-turgical converted from 5-turgical heat to 1 to 5-turgical converted from the specification of the instant patent invention.

(e) Arrangement of the results of preparation

As seen in the comparison between the composition 1 and 2, the instant Claim 1 invention pertains to lamps different from the comparable invention and the operating principle. The scope of the gas pressure and the current value of the electric current is not commenced in the comparable invention. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that the increase in the current value of the electric current to reduce co- loss solely with a specific phrase written by the Defendant’s written opinion (Evidence A No. 5) that does not fall under the prior art disclosed prior to the date of claiming the priority of the instant patent invention is an known technology prior to the date of claiming the priority of the instant patent invention. Furthermore, the same applies to the combination of the content initiated in the evidence No. 14 or the evidence No. 7, which does not constitute prior art prior to the date of claiming the priority of the instant patent invention. The effect of the instant Claim 1 invention that can achieve a high electric current that could reduce damage by combining the low electric current with the low gas pressure of the gas source. This is also the same even in cases where the effect of the instant Claim 1 invention can be achieved as a comparable invention.

(3) Sub-decisions

As seen above, the Claim No. 1 invention of this case differs in its purpose and composition compared to the cited inventions, and has a new increased significant effect, and thus, the nonobviousness cannot be denied since ordinary technicians cannot easily make inventions from the cited inventions.

B. Whether the invention described in paragraphs (2) through (15) of this case is inventive step

The inventions of paragraphs (2) through (15) of this case are subordinate inventions of Claim 1 of this case, and include all the composition of Claim 1 of this case. As long as the nonobviousness of Claim 1 of this case is recognized, the inventive step of Claim 2 through Claim 15 of this case is also recognized.

C. Whether the invention described in paragraphs 16 and 17 of this case is inventive step

The instant Claim 16 invention pertains to a method for moving electric lamps, including electric discharge lamps equipped with closed discharge lamps. Since the instant Claim 1 invention contains substantially identical compositions 1, 4, and 5, compared with comparable inventions with composition 1 and composition 5, the instant Claim 16 invention is non-obviousness.

The instant Claim 17 invention is a subordinate invention of the instant Claim 16 invention, and includes all the composition of the instant Claim 16 invention. As long as the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 16 invention is recognized, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 17 invention is also recognized.

D. Sub-committee

As seen above, the nonobviousness of the inventions of paragraphs 1 through 17 of this case is recognized.

4. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judges' seats (Presiding Judge) Mazylle equal