[권리범위확인][공1994.11.15.(980),2991]
(a) Criteria to recognize the difference of inventions depending on whether promotional products exist in inventions of chemical preparations;
(b) The case reversing the original decision that held that the two inventions are different without examining whether there exists the effects of action, such as the real reduction of fairness, the substantial reduction of reaction time, and the enhancement of the water rate, etc. due to the input of the promotion, in order to recognize that both inventions are different if the starting material of the two inventions are identical and the technical composition of the two inventions are different unless there is any particular difference in the composition of the promotional sheet;
A. The use of promotional agents in the process of manufacturing chemical substances is significantly different from the professional engineer. As such, patent manufacturing methods and promotional agents without any reference to the use of promotional agents are different methods, except where it is deemed that the use of promotional agents is not aimed at gaining the friendship in the effect of the operation, but rather it is merely nothing more than adding a value-free process.
(b) The case reversing the original decision that held that the two inventions are different without examining whether the initial material and the production material are identical, and the technical composition of the two inventions are different unless there is any particular difference in the composition of the two inventions, even though the superiority in the action effect by the addition of the promotional sheet should be proved, the input of the promotional sheet has the effect of substantial reduction of fairness, substantial reduction of the reaction time, improvement of the reaction rate, etc.
Article 97 (1) 2 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 13, 1990)
A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1451 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 117) 90Hu1499 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 305) 92Da830 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3258) Na. Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1196 delivered on October 11, 1994
Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Stotomo Gatoa Gao Gao Gao Gao Gao Gao, Kim Jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant
Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 473 decided May 30, 1992
The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
On the first and third grounds for appeal
The original decision on the trial contains: (a) an invention is composed of DNA, fluoring, and fluoring (two times) in comparison with the technical content of the invention of 5(b) and (a) invention of 16465 (hereinafter this case) invention of the respondent for patent registration; (b) if the technical content of the invention is examined in comparison with the technical content of the invention of 5(b) and (a) invention of 1665 (hereinafter referred to as the "patent"), both are identical with the manufacturing process of yellow chlusium; but in the reaction process, this invention is composed of DNA, chlusing, and chlusing (two times) invention; (a) invention is composed of DNA, blusing, and chlusing and chlusing (1) invention is judged to have the technical effect of reducing the chlusium reaction different from the use of the patent of this case; and (b) invention is judged to have the effect of reducing the chlusium reaction.
Inasmuch as the use of promotions in the manufacturing process of chemicals differs significantly from their professional engineers, the manufacturing process using the promotions is not intended for the use of the promotions as well as for the use of the production process without any reference to the promotions. Even if the production process is the same as the starting material and the production process, the latter's use of the promotions is different from one another except for the case where it is deemed that the latter's use of the promotions is not for the use of the promotions in an effective effect, but for the addition of a valueless process (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1451, Nov. 12, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1499, Nov. 26, 1991; 92Da92Da830, Oct. 27, 1992). Therefore, the latter's method is outside the scope of patent rights.
According to the records, the reduction reaction in this patent is a structure that combines with chlosophia divided into chlosophia and the primary reduction reaction, one of which is not a general formula (Ⅳ) or general formula (Ⅴ), and the remaining one compound is divided into chlosophia and the secondary reduction reaction, and even when the patent is granted, it is specified as a process that combines the above reaction with 40 chlothium after the first reduction reaction from 0-25 chlostium with 40 chlothium and then the temperature is heating at 40 chloths, and (Ga) invention also combines the above reaction with flosophium in the reduction reaction, so even if the above reaction is added, it is divided into flosophia compound, not an flosophium, and it is a structure that combines with flosophium, and thus, it is possible to combine the above reaction with 20 chlosophium with 20 chlothium separately.
Therefore, (A) The invention is not sufficient to put the above reaction simultaneously with the invention in order to find that (a) invention does not fall within the scope of the patent right because there is no particular difference in the technical composition of the invention with the same starting material and producing material in comparison with the patent, and there is no difference in the addition of the unfried scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scheitic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scheic scopic s, and it should be proved.
Therefore, it is not necessary to determine the remaining grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office.
Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)