[2] The case holding that the inventive step of the patent application invention is recognized as "a lack of absorption for the physical amount of gelgel-consembelgel-consembel with a relatively high concentration and a relatively high concentration" in its name

[2] The case holding that the inventive step is recognized on the ground that the patent application invention whose name "the name is "the lack of absorption to have a relatively high-quality lelelele and a relatively high-level lelelele to sel-selgel and a body body with a relatively high level of absorption" is identical to the technical composition and purpose of the comparable invention, but the technical composition and the effect of the invention are different, and the person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field can not easily

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part relating to participation by the Defendant is assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

A. On September 25, 1996, the Plaintiff filed a patent application with the name of "the lack of absorption for the physical part of the Excellentness and relatively high concentration," under the title of 1996-705387 of the application number of Sep. 23, 1996 (the date of the priority claim) stating that "the Plaintiff was unable to easily make an invention from the comparable invention described in attached Form 2. 3., which was notified from the Korean Intellectual Property Office on April 30, 2002, and submitted a written opinion and an amendment on September 23, 2003, on the ground that it was impossible to resolve the above grounds that the decision of rejection was rejected on December 23, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on the decision of refusal to grant a patent, and filed a petition for an objection to the patent claim of this case as stated in attached Form 1.6 (the claim of this case, as stated in attached Table 1.6 (the claim of this case).

B. The patent application invention of this case is related to absorptions used for a liquid absorption product such as a one-time diaper, etc.. The patent application invention of this case is characterized by offering absorptions with high concentration absorptions, and the patent Tribunal dismissed the decision of this case on the ground that the invention of this case paragraph (16) invention of this case does not have inventive blocking (gel blocking, Hegel closure, gelblocks) which is caused by expanding the gap between the visitors by expanding the body in the event of using a large quantity of absorptions (i.e., in such case, there is a large quantity of non-uses within the absorptions, and it does not have an efficient use of absorptions as a whole, because the absorptions exist in the non-uses, and the absorptions are leaked out of the absorption products.)

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute】

2. Whether the invention described in paragraph (16) of this case is inventive

[Reasons for Recognition: Descriptions of Evidence A 1 to 15, Rule of experience, and purport of oral argument]

(a)to prepare for the purpose and technology;

The patent application invention of this case is related to the absence of absorption containing a relatively high concentration Hegel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-gel blocking body. The purpose of the patent application invention is to solve the Hegel blocking phenomenon and to provide absorption members containing a hel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-gel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel-agel distribution speed. Thus, both inventions are substantially identical to each other's technical field.

(b) Preparation for composition and effects;

(1) Legal interest

In determining the originality and inventive step of an invention for which a description is to specify a product based on its nature or characteristics, as long as the nature or characteristics specified in the claims of the invention in the application are limited to the contents of the invention, it shall not be compared with the cited invention except for the technical expression in the composition of the invention. However, in cases where the invention only differs from those of the invention in the technical expression, and where there are substantially identical or similar matters (i.e., conversion of the nature or characteristics specified in the claims of the application into those of the comparable invention into those of the comparable invention by other definitions or methods of testing and measurement, which can be converted into those of the comparable invention as a result of the conversion into those of the comparable invention, or where there are special circumstances such as the detailed description of the specification of the application invention and the detailed form of the comparable invention are identical or similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Hu2658, Jun. 28, 2002; 2001Hu207, Apr. 28, 2004).

(2) Composition of Claim 16 invention of this case

이 사건 제16항 발명은 별지 1.항 기재와 같이, 하이드로겔-형성 중합체를 60 내지 100중량%의 농도로 포함하는 하나 이상의 영역을 포함하는, 수성 체액을 보유하기 위한 흡수 부재로서(이하 ‘구성요소 1’이라고 한다), 상기 하이드로겔-형성 중합체가 팽윤 상태에서 겔-연속 유체 전달 대역을 제공하고, (a) 50×10-7㎤초/g 이상의 염수 유동 전도성(SFC) 값; (b) 0.7psi(5kPa)의 제한 압력하에 23g/g 이상의 가압하 성능(PUP) 용량 값; 및 (c) 10gsm 이상의 기본 중량을 갖고(이하 ‘구성요소 2’라고 한다), 전형적인 사용 조건에서 상기 겔 연속 대역이 겔-연속 대역을 통해 체액을 포획하고 전달하는 능력을 실질적으로 유지하도록 상기 영역이 충분한 습윤일체성을 갖는 흡수 부재(이하 ‘구성요소 3’이라고 한다)로 구성되어 있다.

그 중, 구성요소 1은 비교대상발명의 명세서 중, “바람직한 양태에서, 상기 중합체 물질입자는 본원에 기술된 중량% 분석(Weight Percentage Analysis)에 따라 선택된 흡수 코어의 적어도 하나의 25㎠의 부분 중에 중합체 물질 입자의 약 25 내지 약 90중량%의 농도로 분포된다.” 등의 기재에 의하여 그 기술사상이 개시되어 있고, 구성요소 3은 우수한 흡수 부재를 제조함에 있어서 통상 고려해야 할 구성으로, 주지관용기술로 보이는 ‘화학적으로 경화된 셀룰로스 섬유’의 사용에 대하여는 비교대상발명의 명세서에도 개시되어 있을 뿐만 아니라, 충분한 습윤일체성(건조상태, 부분 혹은 전체 습윤상태에서 전형적인 사용조건인 흡수 제품을 착용하고 있는 사람의 움직임에 영향을 받아 붕괴되거나 부분적으로 두꺼워지고 얇아지거나 끊김이 생기지 않고 물리적 연속성을 유지하는 것을 의미한다.)은 다른 구성요소와 위와 같은 선행 기술 등을 통하여 달성하여야 할 바람직한 효과에 가까운 것으로 별다른 기술적 특징이 있는 구성요소로 보기 어려우므로, 이하에서는 쟁점사항인 구성요소 2가 비교대상발명으로부터 용이하게 도출될 수 있는지에 관하여 살피기로 한다.

(3) Preparation against components 2 and comparable inventions

(A) Under the premise that it is difficult to provide relatively high concentration absorptions containing a relatively high concentration solely by the existing methods to solve Hegel blocking phenomenon, it is characterized by the expression of the absorption level in terms of pressure pressure performance, i.e., “high pressure level” by referring to the rapid transport of fluids from the “grad state” and considering the actual conditions of use, such as the movement of absorption stacks, etc.

This is because the value of the “x-y plane and z-way flow speed” as indicated in the comparable invention is not sufficient to effectively solve the Hegel blocking phenomenon under the actual conditions of use by measuring the time required to absorb the quantity equivalent to 90% of the body that absorbs the body first 30 minutes from the “dried condition” to the “dried condition,” or by defining the characteristics of the body in a new value as the value of the body. The value of the “underwater absorption level (lod, AUL)” is defined as approximately 0.9% quantity (l/g or g/g) absorptiond by the body that applied approximately 0.3 psi pressure.

Considering the previous technology in the technical field as above and the technical task to be solved by the invention as well as the nature of the subject matter of invention, it is difficult to specify the subject matter of invention in the invention of paragraph 16 of this case by the structure, and the structure alone makes it difficult to distinguish between the previous subject matter and the technology when intending to specify the subject matter. Therefore, in determining the inventiveness of the invention of paragraph 16 of this case in comparison with the cited invention, the above elements 2 of the invention of this case seems to be an important composition.

(B) On the other hand, the cited invention does not appear to have a direct composition of the above salt emulsion content (SFC) value or the current pressure (PUP) capacity value. Moreover, as seen above, the premise is measured with different values, and thus, it does not indicate the nature or characteristics that can be converted into the same or similar one, except the value of “x-yp plane and z-way flow rate” or “underwater absorption level (AUL) capacity value.”

(C) Also, in comparison with the specific process where two inventions start or manufacture methods appear, the invention of the instant Claim No. 16 states only the absorption rate or distribution rate by using a specific surface, such as 1, 2, etc., to be carried out in the existing sub-slogel-consemyed joints without using inorganic powder (i.e., “1,3-didine-2-ion” as a bridge, and (ii) using heating conditions at 185°1 hours or 195°1 hours, etc.). However, the invention of the instant Claim No. 16 starts with the process of providing a specific range of salt flow, e.g., e., a specific target of the instant Claim No. 16, without using inorganic powder, or (iii) using inorganic powders (i.e., a non-consemnite, etc.). However, the technical characteristics of the invention of the instant Claim No. 16 are not clearly compared to those of the invention of the instant Claim No. 188 to be used.

(D) As to this, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserted that the method of combining the surface of the invention indicated in the specification of the instant Claim Nos. 16 is widely known and used, and that the prior art is identical or similar to the surface comparison method indicated in the specification of the instant Claim No. 4,824,901, 46, 983, and 4,734, and 478 of the U.S. Patent No. 4,824,901, 66, and 983, which are presented as prior art in the specification of the instant Claim No. 16 as prior art (hereinafter “mentor patent”) or the prior art indicated in the specification of the instant Claim No. 16 as well as the prior art indicated in the specification of the instant Claim No. 16 is not a new ground for rejection unless the prior art is indicated differently from the prior art’s specification No. 2 and the prior art cannot be deemed as being written in the prior art specification No. 1 as well as the prior art’s detailed explanation of the grounds for rejection.

On the other hand, it cannot be seen that a method identical or similar to the instant license, among the prior art described in the cited inventions, cannot be found among the methods of combining the surface of the surface indicated in the cited inventions. Moreover, the degree of improvement of the degree of dysiumability or the level of performance under pressure by combining the surface of the surface may vary in accordance with the relative level and distribution of dysiums, the type of the virtual combination, and the method of treatment, such as heating temperature, etc. (the foregoing most advanced technologies are subject to a new patent on the ground that they are combined with a specific surface). Even if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can grasp some of the prior art on the method of combining the surface of the cited inventions solely by the description of the cited inventions, if it is ordinarily obvious to have the same invention, if it was left alone without reaching such invention, and thus, it cannot be easily seen that the invention has a significant effect in the instant technical field, as long as it is based on the outcomes of the foregoing prior art presented by the person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field.

(E) In addition, the defendant's assistant intervenor asserts that the value of salt dynamics (SFC) is identical or convertible with the concept of Darcy law and the virtual pressure performance value are similar to that of Darcys (PUP) so the patent application invention of this case constitutes a numerical limited invention requiring clinical significance in numerical limit, but the patent application invention of this case is one of the general rules indicating the degree of dynamics through multi-cogncy, but it cannot be deemed that it is identical or convertible with that of Darcys (AUL) where the administration degree is measured under the pressure similar to that of actual conditions of use. Unlike 0.3psi, the performance of DUP is measured under the pressure of DUL and its performance cannot be viewed as being identical or comparable to that of DULs (AUP). Thus, the performance of DUP is identical or acceptable under the premise that it can be viewed as having shown its performance under the premise that it is identical or acceptable under the condition of use under the condition of p. 0.7.

(f) Other components 2 correspond to the provision of Hegel-in-form transfer bands under expansion of Hegel-in-form fluids, which corresponds to the provision of the improved absorption speed and distribution rate, and the provision of absorption structures and absorption products with the improved absorption rate and absorption rate, and the combination of Hegel-in-forms with the basic weight above 10gs" is the basic weight (g/in2) listed in the table 3 of the comparable invention. The basic weight (g/in2) as indicated in the table 3 of the comparable invention (where this case is converted by gsms of the applied invention of this case, it falls within the scope of approximately 390 to 650) is responding to the scope of 0.25 to 0.42 (where this case is converted by gsm of the applied invention of this case). In all, it is a component that has no substantial difference in the composition

(G) Ultimately, the composition of the instant Claim 16 invention cannot be deemed as substantially identical or similar to the composition of the cited invention, and it does not appear to have an effect of indicating the physical nature, such as the instant Claim 16 invention. Therefore, it is difficult to deny the significant effect of the instant Claim 16 invention.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, although the instant Claim 16 invention is identical to the cited invention and its technical field and purpose, it cannot be readily denied the inventive step because a person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case could not easily make an invention based on the comparable invention, and thus, the instant decision of refusal and the trial decision, which different conclusions, are unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)