The case holding that the court below's judgment which held otherwise erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that the patent claim No. 1 of the patent application invention named "the patent application invention with the name "abrid multimedia data storage DNA" can easily be claimed from comparable invention No. 1 and No. 2, and its inventive step is denied.

Article 29(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006)

콸콤 인코포레이티드 (소송대리인 변호사 김경환외 6인)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo2876 Decided November 5, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, the composition of Paragraph 1 of the Patent Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) of the instant patent application invention named “a flive multimedia data storage flives” (hereinafter “the instant patent application No. 1”) is a disc flive drive using multiple recorded hedges that receive input data from Berers, which is composed of “clives using multiple recorded flives to receive input data,” which is one of the 2-time speed speeds for reading, and the said 2-time speed for reading is higher than the 1-time speed for reading.” This is a technical feature that divides the operation of disc dlives into reading and recording, and makes the disc flive speed lower than the flive speed of recording in order to reduce the flive consumption power.

However, the detailed description of the invention of the comparable invention 1 states that “the high speed transmission of the data is favorable but the high speed consumption power is lost. However, in the case of low speed short circuit, there is a key point against it.” Furthermore, the comparable invention 1 starts using a revolving method that operates multiple diskss and revolving methods to control one’s own diskss, and if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”), it appears that the person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains is required to reduce the consumption power, and it would be easy for him to have the upper or attempt to use the disc in the same way as the above, and if it is not installed in the record recycling device, the person with the same technological feature as that of the prior invention 1’s claim 24, which means: (a) in the case where the prior invention is not installed in the record recycling device, the person with a low speed-oriented device, which means the recording device that is installed in the same way as that of the prior invention; and (b) in the case where it is installed in the record recycling type.

In addition, composition 2 of the judgment of the court below as the remainder of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case, which is also known or easily derived from the comparison invention No. 1 and No. 2.

Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied since ordinary technicians can easily make inventions from comparable inventions 1 and 2. However, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is not denied by comparable inventions 1 and 2 on the premise that the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention (1) invention cannot be easily drawn from comparable inventions 1. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal assigning this error are with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment 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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)