[1] Whether "the identity of the bill" under Article 4 (3) of the former Utility Model Act is identical

[2] The case holding that the two devices are not identical on the ground that the difference between the technical composition of the registered device and the cited device is not merely a minor difference in the extent that no new effect exists due to the addition, deletion, or modification of the tolerance technology, which is widely known

[1] In determining the identity of a device under Article 4 (3) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4596 of Dec. 10, 1993), the technical composition of both devices shall be determined on the basis of whether the technical composition of the device is identical, but the effects of the device shall also be taken into account. Even if the technical composition differs from the technical composition, if the difference is merely a minor difference to the extent that there is no new effect due to addition, deletion, modification, etc. of widely known and widely known art in the specific means for solving the task, the two devices shall be identical to each other.

[2] The case holding that the two devices are not identical on the ground that the difference between the technical composition of the registered device and the cited device is not merely a minor difference to the extent that there is no new effect due to the addition, deletion, or modification of the tolerance technology, which is widely known

[1] Articles 4(3) and 32 (see current Article 5(3) of the former Utility Model Act (Amended by Act No. 4596, Dec. 10, 1993); / [2] Articles 4(3) (see current Article 5(3)) and 32 (see current Article 49) of the former Utility Model Act (Amended by Act No. 4596, Dec. 10, 1993);

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Hu179 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 529), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1154 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 754) Supreme Court Decision 93Hu824 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994, 720), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1926 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2119), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu487 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 391), Supreme Court Decision 296Da28150 delivered on November 12, 1996 (Gong396, 1950)

Claimant (Patent Attorney Tae-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Appellant (Patent Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 97Na203 dated February 20, 1998

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. 원심심결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 채용증거들에 의하여, 크랭크축 가공기에 관한 (실용신안등록번호 생략) 고안(출원일 1993. 4. 22., 등록일 1996. 1. 15., 이하 '이 사건 등록고안'이라 한다)과 축 연마기에 관한 실용신안공개 제94-14918호 고안(출원일 1992. 12. 28., 공개일 1994. 7. 19., 이하 '인용고안'이라 한다)을 대비하면서, 첫째 이 사건 등록고안은 가공물 협지구(5)가 나일론수지로 구성되나, 인용고안은 그 재질이 특정되지 아니한 점, 둘째 이 사건 등록고안은 절삭 작동부(8)의 대향측에 마이크로미터(11)가 설치된 구조이나, 인용고안은 삭도(10)와 대향되는 위치의 연결봉 사이에 마이크로미터(28)를 끼울 수 있도록 한 점, 셋째 이 사건 등록고안은 바이트(7＇)의 지지판(8)에 나사간(9)이 끼워져 회동판(10)의 작동으로 회동되나, 인용고안은 회전원판의 회전에 따라 나사봉(13)에 회동할 수 있도록 결합된 기어(20)가 작동하여 삭도(10)가 이송되도록 한 점을 제외한 나머지 기술수단은 서로 일치하고 있는바, 이 사건 등록고안이 협지구(5)를 나일론수지로 한 것은 단순한 재료의 치환에 불과한 것이고, 이 사건 등록고안이 마이크로미터를 절삭 작동부의 대향측에 설치한 것은 인용고안에서 삭도(10)와 대향되는 위치의 연결봉 사이에 마이크로미터를 끼울 수 있도록 하는 기술과 동일하며, 이 사건 등록고안에서 바이트의 작동이 몸체(1)-회동판(10)-나사간(9)-지지판(8)-바이트(7＇)의 상호작용으로 이루어지는 것은 인용고안에서 회전원판(1A,1B)-나사봉(13)-기어(20)-삭도 지지체(9)-삭도(10)의 상호작용으로 삭도(10)의 작동이 이루어지는 것과 사실상 동일한 것으로 판단되므로, 이 사건 등록고안은 그 출원일 전에 출원되고 그 출원일 후에 공개된 인용고안과 동일한 것이어서 실용신안법 제4조 제1항 제2호 및 제3항의 규정에 위배되어 잘못 등록된 것이라는 이유로 같은 법 제32조 제1항 제1호의 규정에 의하여 무효로 되어야 한다고 판단하였다.

2. In determining the identity of a device under Article 4(3) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4596, Dec. 10, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply), the technical composition of both devices shall be determined on the basis of whether the technical composition of the device is identical, but the effects of the device shall also be taken into account. Even if the technical composition differs from the technical structure, if the difference is merely a minor difference to the extent that there is no new effect due to addition, deletion, modification, etc. of the tolerance technology known in the specific means for solving the task, the two devices shall be deemed the same.

In light of the records, while the cited height plan does not put any limitation on the quality of the materials in the narrow zone of the troke, the registered height plan of this case has a difference in the effect that it can process the troke troke troke troke troke troke more closely by improving the narrowness of the narrow zone of the troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke troke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke eroke ele eros ero eroke ero eros ero eros.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that held that the registered appeal of this case and the cited appeal of this case are identical is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the identity of the device under Article 4 (3) of the former Utility Model Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part pointing

3. Therefore, the original decision shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Patent Court corresponding to the original decision. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)