Dpia Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

July 14, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 29, 2005 by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2005 No. 999 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

(a) The details of the procedures;

(1) As to the patented invention of this case (the patent application date July 22, 1996, the priority date, June 28, 1996) under the name of "Isk Co., Ltd. (the plaintiff was changed to the plaintiff on September 4, 2004; hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the patent establishment registration was made under the name of "Isk Co., Ltd. (the patent number No. 18260)" (the patent number No. 18260).

(2) On June 30, 199, the Plaintiff filed an objection against this on June 30, 199. On January 15, 200, the Plaintiff corrected the scope of the patent application of the instant patent invention. On September 22, 2000, the Patent Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke the registration of the patent application of the instant patent invention under paragraphs (1) through (7) of the Patent Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for correction reduces the scope of the claims specifically limited to the elements of the claim prior to the correction. Thus, the Patent Tribunal did not notify the Plaintiff of its opinion on the patent application since the Plaintiff’s request for correction did not receive any correction prior to the aforementioned decision on September 22, 200.

(3) The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above decision of revocation and claimed for the revocation thereof, but on October 31, 2001, the decision of dismissal of the plaintiff's claim was made (the Patent Tribunal No. 2000 No. 65) on the ground that the corrected claim was non-obviousness. In addition, on the same ground, on December 13, 2002, the decision of dismissal of the plaintiff's claim was rendered (the Patent Tribunal No. 2001No7042).

(4) On January 4, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on January 4, 2003. On November 13, 2003, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Patent Court of Korea on the ground that “In the above decision of revocation, there was an error of violation of the mandatory provisions made by the board of examiners without giving the board of examiners an opportunity to submit a written opinion to the Plaintiff, and if the board of examiners deemed that the request of correction satisfies all the requirements for correction, the board of examiners violated the decision of patent maintenance instead of the decision to revoke the patent for the corrected claim, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke the decision of revocation on October 31, 2001.”

(5) Accordingly, on May 31, 2004, the above objection was revoked (2004 re-mark 4). On July 8, 2004, the examiner’s board sent the Plaintiff a notice of the reason for non-obviousness of correction, and on March 31, 2005, the examiner’s board did not recognize the above request for correction, and the patent claim Nos. 1 to 7 of the instant patent invention was revoked for lack of non-obviousness compared to comparable invention No. 1 and No. 2.

(6) On April 19, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision of revocation on the above revocation, but the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board tried to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as the original decision on September 29, 2005.

B. Patent of this case

The claims for patent of the patented invention of this case are as shown in Appendix 1.

C. Invention after the correction of this case

The Plaintiff requested correction as stated in the attached Form 2, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the patent claim of the instant patent invention. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested correction only for the part cited in paragraphs 2 through 5 and 7, which are its subordinate claims.

(d) Cited inventions;

Invention 1, the name of which is “sporessive influence creation,” and the name of comparable Invention 2, the name of which is “sporesive influence”, is “sporesive influent co-rating agents”, are as shown in attached Table 3.

[Evidence Cards 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 9, 10, 11 each 1, 2

2. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision by the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. Main assertion

Although the board of examiners has already recognized a legitimate request for correction in a patent objection procedure requiring strict procedural justification, it is not only to deny the legal stability of the procedure performed by the parties and the board of examiners at the time of five-year leisure time, but also to go beyond the right holder with the misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Patent Act. Therefore, even though the board of examiners should make a decision of patent maintenance because it is bound by the existing disposition of correction recognition and make a decision of patent maintenance differently, it should be revoked.

B. Preliminary assertion

(1) After a request for correction, paragraph (1) invention is non-obviousness compared to the comparable inventions in light of the difference in its purpose, composition, and effect with the cited inventions as follows.

(A) After the request for correction, paragraph (1) invention is aimed at providing, in addition to incombustibility, internal, durability, internal, resistant, and psychotropic drugs with high-quality paints created, but comparable invention 1 and 2 are not only for fireproof purposes but also for other purposes, such as internality, etc.

(B) Since multiple co-mix marry of the invention of paragraph (1) after the request for correction is a publicly known component, a large number of Gu co-owners (Guide mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar) gather and a large number of mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar.

(C) After the request for correction, the multi-functional mixtures of the invention of paragraph (1) after the request for correction is made may form a sub-mixed floor by moving to the surface of the non-story when the heat was opened because the density was low. The three-story floor formed on the surface of the non-rises is to prevent the inflow of oxygen into the bridge inside the bridges, and to ensure a stable expansion of the expansion rate by maintaining the spreading range even after the spreading has been actively formed on the bridges. On the other hand, since the sub-section 1 of the comparable invention 1 does not have a multi-functional density and thus does not have a density lower than that of other development components, it is a technology to prevent spreading by restricting the continuous spreading in the inside the products by moving to the surface without moving to the surface even with the heat, and by restricting the spreading of the products from the inside the products. Therefore, the spreading rate is to increase over 15 times to 12 times.

(D) After the request for correction, the multi-functional mixtures of the Claim 1 invention is formed on the surface of the paint in order to promote the distribution effect. On the other hand, it is possible to control the distribution effect of the instant Claim 1’s fibers that have been commercialized of the textile materials of comparable inventions 1 exist inside the paint in order to restrain the distribution effect.

(E) In comparison with the formula (K: The heat rate, A: the short size, time, (T1-T2): temperature difference and L: length of the body of body) of the comparable invention 1 after the request for correction, paragraph (1) after the request for correction was made, as the heat rate (K) is lower than that of the comparable invention 1, and the length (L) of the body of body is higher than that of the comparable invention 1, and the total heat is lower than that of the comparable invention 1, it has a significant difference. In other words, Paragraph (1) after the request for correction, Paragraph (1) after the request for correction has been made, it is remarkably superior to that of the comparable invention 1, while paragraph (1) invention is made of the combination of the three-storys formed on the surface of the spode surface, which is capable of spreading by spreading more actively, while paragraph (1) invention 1 after the request for correction was made of technical composition of expansion of spores, which is more than that of the comparable invention 1, more than that of the two inventions 1.

(2) Subsequent to a request for correction, paragraphs (2) through (5) of the same Article are subordinate to the invention of Paragraph (1) after the request for correction is made. Paragraph (6) invention after the request for correction is made is identical only to the technical composition of Paragraph (1) invention after the request for correction is made. Paragraph (7) invention after the request for correction also substantially identical to Paragraph (6) invention after the request for correction. Therefore, insofar as the nonobviousness of Paragraph (1) invention is recognized after the request for correction, paragraphs (2) through (7) after

3. Determination

A. Whether to recognize correction requests

(1) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the legality of non-recognition of correction

As examined above 1. A. (4) The Supreme Court, in processing a request for correction in the previous procedure of filing an objection, where it judged that the patent cannot be granted at the time of the filing of the application due to the lack of non-obviousness in the corrected claim, the Supreme Court rejected the correction and should have considered the patentability of the corrected claim as the subject of the objection decision. However, the Supreme Court stated that the correction of the corrected claim is legitimate and the correction of the corrected claim is the subject of the objection decision and decided to revoke the patent registration is inconsistent with each other because the corrected claim is without non-obviousness. On the ground that the defect in the above procedure cannot be corrected by the court, the Supreme Court revoked both the trial decision and the patent court decision and rendered a decision to correct the procedure of this case at the KIPO.

As a result, the board of examiners re-examine the procedure for filing the instant objection, notified the patentee of the ground that it cannot accept the instant request for correction, and given the patentee an opportunity to submit a written opinion, and revoked the registration of the instant patented invention.

Therefore, in the objection procedure of this case, it is intended to remedy the defect in the procedure according to the decision of the Supreme Court, which is legally processed in accordance with the provisions on correction of the Patent Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any error.

In addition, the ground alleged by the plaintiff alone does not constitute a legal ground to revoke the trial decision of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the invention of Paragraph (1) after the request for correction is inventive.

(A)Preparation for purposes

In the instant Claim 1 invention and Cited Invention 1 and 2, in the case of flames caused by fire, technical challenges are practically the same in order to solve in that the combustion prevention floor is formed and the resistant substance has a resistant effect, and to provide more safe water-resistant paints in the respect of sanitation environment or environmental pollution.

However, the invention of paragraph (1) after the request for correction, in addition to the above effects, is indicated as a technical task in the specification even though it is intended to provide the created products with excellent infection, cooling, and cryr characteristics. However, these features are not matters to be particularly known in paragraph (1) invention after the request for correction as an issue of past technology and to be solved by recognizing the problems of previous technology in paragraph (1) invention after the request for correction.

Therefore, the claim 1 invention after the request for correction cannot be deemed to have peculiar characteristics for the purpose compared with the cited inventions.

(b) Preparation of composition and action effects

1) consistent with comparable inventions

After the request for correction, among the elements of paragraph (1) invention, the glass transition temperature is limited to the hydroelectric water, which is -50 to 50 cc, which is limited to coloring agents, carbon chemical agents, promotion agents, spaws, coloring agents, and additives are corresponding to the coloring agents of comparable inventions 2, whose product name is approximately approximately 7% in territh EZ-36 glass transfer temperature, and which is about 7% in territhic EZ-vinylvinyltechs, coloring agents of comparable inventions 1, but the carbon agents, bracks, blacks, colorings, and additives. The above components responding to the two inventions are identical only the expression, and each component is identical with each other, and the composition of the two inventions is substantially identical (the plaintiff acknowledges that all of the elements of paragraph (1) inventions have already been publicly notified by the cited inventions after the request for correction has been made).

2) Different from comparable inventions 1

However, after the request for correction, paragraph (1) invention is different in terms of using 2-10% of a special short heat with a single or mixed multi-mix routture routture routture routture routture or multi-use routture routture routture routture routtures, etc., in order to prevent the routture routtures from infiltrating into the non-string layers. However, comparable invention 1 is different in terms of using 4-15% weight (6-20 routture / grouttures) of a routture routture

If we look at Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleading [the name of 4 (the "submix total theory" hereinafter) submitted by the defendant] , i.e., a company which is made through heat treatment after compressing non-metallics, i.e., a company which is made through heat treatment, and the base rate vary depending on stimulative methods and temperature. It can be acknowledged that internal cargo containing stimulative ingredients, such as leadinium, aluminium, e.g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., m., m.

Ultimately, the multi-functional mixing of the Claim No. 1 invention after the request for correction does not vary with the tenant who sculpted the textile materials of the cited invention No. 1, and there is no special difference in the technical composition of both inventions, such as overlap between the development cost and the numerical scope of some numerical limits. Accordingly, it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to have no particular difference in the operational effects due to the technical composition. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the sub- Claim No. 1 invention No. 1 invention has technical significance compared to the tenant who sculpted the textile materials of the cited invention No.

3) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that paragraph (1) invention, after the correction request as described in 2.2.b. (1) through (e), has a significant operating effect compared with the comparable invention 1, such as blocking the inflow of oxygen into the spo-story by forming a sub-mixed floor on the upper part of the spo-story, and maintaining stability in preventing the infiltration of oxygen into the spo-story.

However, referring to the example of the two inventions, the comparable invention 1, after the request for correction, does not allow any special manipulation other than the mixture of three-mixed ingredients on the liquid distress materials at the time of manufacturing the same as the invention of paragraph (1) after the request for correction. Thus, unless other special manipulation is added, the three-mixed ingredients are equally included in the total amount of the incombustible paints created. Thus, if the three-story ingredients are heated in the three-story components on the part of the non-story, it cannot be said that the formation of the three-story floor on the part of the non-story is self-conscept as referred to in paragraph (1) after the request for correction is made. Thus, it cannot be said that the formation of the three-story floor on the part of the non-story is the unique effect of paragraph (1) invention after the request for correction is made.

However, as the size of the machine normally reduces the size of the machine, there is an increase in the rate of the machine, and there is an increase in the heat effect in proportion to the rate of the machine (the above reference materials 4). Since the invention of paragraph (1) after the request for correction does not have a composition that restricts the expansion of the machine, the problem of the existing technology known in the comparable invention 1, i.e., the problem of the spreading, i., the possibility of a high spreading or explosion, and the possibility of a high spreading or explosion, may reduce the number of the machine. On the other hand, the comparable invention 1 restricts the size of the machine by the technical composition that intends to provide effective fireproof walls by preventing the spreading or explosion of the machine, so the expansion rate may be reduced compared to the invention of paragraph (1) after the request for correction, but the rate of the machine hole directly affecting the heat effect may increase more than the invention of paragraph (1) after the request for correction.

In addition, the test results of the Claim 1 invention after the request for correction include the dyslexic test results under UL-94, IEE383, etc. (attached Table 1). However, it is difficult to recognize that the effect of Claim 1 invention after the request for correction is considerably more than that of Claim 1, even though there is a similarity in composition, as seen earlier, even though there is a similarity in composition, it is difficult to recognize that the effect of Claim 1 invention after the request for correction is considerably superior to that of Claim 1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(C) Summary of the result of preparation

Thus, the claim 1 invention after the request for correction is not different from the technical task to be solved in comparison with the cited invention 1 and 2, and there is no special difference in the solution method. Moreover, the effects of the claim 1 invention are not only expected from the comparable invention 1 and 2, so it is sufficient to deny its nonobviousness.

(3) Whether the invention described in paragraphs (2) through (5) was inventiveally inventive after the request for correction

After the request for correction, the inventions of paragraphs 2 through 5 include both a subordinate or subsidiary that specifically limits the carbon agents, promotions, and spreading composition of the inventions of paragraph 1 after the request for correction, and its constituent elements include all of the carbon agents, solvents, and tables as indicated in the comparable invention 1. Thus, there is a special technical significance in that it limits the constituent elements specifically.

Therefore, the invention of paragraphs 2 through 5 after a request for correction can be easily described by comparable inventions 1 and 2, so non-obviousness is not recognized.

(4) Whether the invention described in paragraphs 6 and 7 was inventiveally inventive after the request for correction

After the request for correction, the invention of Paragraph 6 is related to the sporesponding combustion prevention material. However, this is merely limited to the scope of invention, including all elements of design for the prevention of sporessive combustion listed in Paragraph 1 after the request for correction, and is substantially the same as the invention of Paragraph 1 after the request for correction, and therefore, it is possible for a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field for the same reason as the invention of Claim 1 after the request for correction, to easily make inventions in accordance with Invention 1 and 2.

In addition, paragraph (7) invention after the request for correction is a subordinate claim to paragraph (6) invention after the request for correction, and is limited to painting with a thickness of 0.5-2.0 meters from the thickness of 0.5-2.0 meters on an electric telecommunications cable. However, using fireproof paints in ordinary electric cables is already publicly notified in accordance with the comparable Invention 1, and the comparable invention 2 contains the following facts: “If a cable is used, the clothes thickness shall be 1.5 meters,” and it cannot be said that there is a special technical significance in that limiting the thickness of the drying thickness. Thus, the claim (7) invention after the request for correction is sufficient to deny its nonobviousness from the comparison invention 1 and 2.

(5) Sub-decisions

After a request for correction, the invention described in paragraphs (1) through (7) cannot be patentable at the time of a patent application because the nonobviousness of the invention 1 and 2 is denied from comparable inventions 1 and 2. Thus, the request for correction in this case cannot be recognized as a violation of Article 136 (3) of the former Patent Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 77

B. Whether the patented invention of this case is inventive step

As long as the request for correction of this case is unlawful, the inventive step of the patented invention of this case shall be the subject of the claim prior to the request for correction. Thus, we examine the patented invention of this case and the cited inventions in comparison therewith.

As seen earlier, the instant request for correction limited, among the claims prior to the correction, to the temperature of glass sources with -50 to 50°C, and to the effect that it contains mixing elements in order to prevent the infiltration of oxygen into the inside of the spo-story by forming the mixing floor on the hydro-story water sponding part of the hydro-story water spores, thereby reducing the scope of claims.

Therefore, insofar as the claim of the invention after the request for correction of this case lacks non-obviousness from comparable inventions 1 and 2, the claim of this case prior to the request for correction stating a broad range of claims is not recognized.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the trial decision of this case as above is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Hwang Han-sik (Presiding Judge)