The case holding that the registered device cannot be deemed the same device as the cited device, and that a person with ordinary knowledge in the field is not able to easily create it from the cited device.

The case holding that the registered device cannot be deemed the same device as the cited device, and that a person with ordinary knowledge in the field is not able to easily create it from the cited device.

Article 5 of the Utility Model Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Hu10 Decided October 14, 1986

Patent Attorney Kang-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Patent Attorney Yang Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 263 dated December 17, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Intellectual Property Office") No. 263

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the original decision, the court below: (a) compared the cited height proposal of the utility model registration in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "registration device") and Gap evidence Nos. 1 (fire 55-52704, Apr. 8, 1980), compared with the cited height proposal of 55 (1980), the court below held that the admitting light tamp (30) is equipped with a combination (32) combining the electric components other than the type light light (50) with a tamp (40), and that the registered device of this case is not identical with that of the tamping hole (6) on both sides of the connecting hole connected with tampt lamps such as a type light, and thus, (2) and the tampling light (3) are installed in both parts of the body and (8) are installed in the tamping tamp (8). Thus, the court below found the technical composition of the tamping body and determined that the tamping body does not have the same technological effect as the tling structure.

However, according to the Utility Model Gazette No. 1 attached to the record of this case, since the scope of a claimant's request for utility model registration of this case is clear that the invention of this case is "a trigramal light, etc. installed in both sides of (5) connecting trigram light lamps (4) with trigrams (8) installed inside the inner area by forming trigrams (9) and (10) and the trigrams (10) installed in the trigrams (8) installed in the trigrams which are identical to the above trigrams and the trigrams attached to the record of this case, the scope of the claim for utility model registration of this case can be easily covered by the trigrams and the trigrams (2) which are attached with the trine light light, and it can not be seen that the trigrams are used in both sides of the trigrams and the trigrams and the trigrams and the trigrams and the trigrams of the above A.1.

The court below's decision denying the right to the registered complaint based on the decision that the registered complaint of this case was publicly announced by the quoted example has affected the conclusion of the decision by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the public notice and inventive step in the utility model, and thus, it is reasonable to criticize this.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

Kim Jong-sik cannot sign and seal on his overseas business trip. A regular boarding shall not be made.