Samsung Sdia Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jae-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

July 6, 2010

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 24, 2009 on the case No. 2008 Won8940 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Application invention of this case

(a) Name of the invention: High molecule molecule and employed Lithium batteries batteries;

(2) Date / Number of the application: August 31, 2002

(3) Applicant: The plaintiff

(4) Claims: Attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant invention” as of August 4, 2008, and each of the claims is described in the same manner as “instant Claim 1 invention”).

(b) Invention;

The comparable invention is an invention with the name "(A) to be transferred to high moleculithium secondary batteries and its manufacturing methods," and its main contents are as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Circumstances leading to the trial decision of this case

On August 31, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a patent application for the instant invention. On February 21, 2008, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the presentation of the opinion on the grounds that the nonobviousness and inventive step are denied in comparison with the cited invention. On April 21, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment, such as the specification, etc. However, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rendered a decision of refusal on August 4, 2008 on the ground that the amended invention was denied non-obviousness. On September 3, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an appeal against the decision of refusal with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2008 Won8940, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the ground that the original decision was justifiable since the nonobviousness of the instant invention was denied by the cited invention.

2. The parties’ assertion and the issues of the instant case

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) In order to solve the problem of deterioration of the cell performance, such as high-tension, low-ion voltage, and inter-versing characteristics, which occurs when using polychloratesye base (hereinafter “the instant patent application invention”) in Lithium 2 batteries as high-molecule cells, the instant patent application invention provides molecular molecule, including dye dyeculine shotos (hereinafter “chemical 1 mars”), instead of polychloratesye 1, in order to solve the problem of deterioration of the cell performance such as high-tensions, low-ion voltages, and inter-versyeide characteristics. However, the instant patent application invention aims to improve the mechanical strength of the character, including polyethyl metacrylate (hereinafter “PMMA”), and thus, the purpose and effect of the instant patent application invention differs from the purpose and the action effect pursued by the instant patent application invention.

(2) The instant Claim 1 invention is a combination of the main ingredients of the high molecule character that is to be transferred to the high molecule. While the main contents of the instant Claim 1 are chemical 1 Monos. However, the instant Claim 1 invention is deemed as the main contents of the PMA. As such, compared to the cited inventions, the instant Claim 1 invention is deemed as having entirely difference between the composition and the chemical structure of the high molecule character. Therefore, it is difficult to form.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

(1) The comparable invention has the same effect as the invention claimed in the instant paragraph (1), purpose, and pursuing, since the comparable invention has a purpose not only to improve the mechanical strength of high molecule, but also to improve the clock characteristics, safety, and well-being characteristics of batteries.

(2) The patent application invention of this case stated in the claim that "the multi-functional emulsian emulsian occine, which are indicated as chemical formula 1, and the high molecular molecule molecule molecular molecular molecule products, including high molecule dysium dysium, and non-water organic dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium e.

C. Key issue of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case is whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 and Claim 2 is denied based on comparable inventions.

3. Determination

A. Whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 invention is denied compared to the cited inventions

(i)technical preparation;

The patent application invention of this case and the cited invention of this case are both related to the transfer of high molecules used in Lithium secondary batteries, and more specifically, they are related to the technology that improves the characteristics of high molecules, which are included in high molecules, and thus, the technical field is the same.

(2) Preparation for purposes

The patent application invention of this case 1 is aimed at providing high molecule molecule molecule molecule molecule molecule with high molecule molecule molecule molecule with high molecule molecule structure and strong interactions with polychloe ions and polychlorates with high interactions, etc. to affect the cell performance. Thus, the purpose of the patent application invention of this case 1 is to provide high molecule molecule molecule molecule molecule molecule with high molecule molecule molecule molecule molecule mar mar with chemical 1 mars to solve these problems (see, e.g., paragraph 2 to 13 from the lower part of the evidence No. 4). On the other hand, the previous PMA system molecule mar molecule mar is excellent but mechanical strengths are weak, so it is at the same time to improve the problem and at manufacturing molecule 27th mar performance (see, e.g. 27).

Therefore, the patent application invention of this case and the cited invention of this case are common in that both are designed to provide high molecules suitable for the use of thalthium 2 batteries in terms of offline performance, such as chlothium characteristics, safety, and salphing characteristics. However, the patent application invention of this case is a main task to solve the problems arising from the decline in the transfer of existing technology, which uses polyalthtye dykeas as a high moleculs character to be transferred to a high molecule, and the main task is to improve the mechanical strength of the PMA dys to be transferred to a high molecule in the field of offline performance. In light of the fact that the cited invention of this case is the main task, both inventions are basically different kinds of high molecules, and the physical properties are limited to different kinds of high molecules, and the technical task that is recognized therefrom is also different from each other, and therefore, there is a clear difference in the specific purpose of pursuing each invention.

(3) Composition Preparation

(A) Technical composition of the patent application invention of this case 1

The decentralization of the patent application invention in this case consists of the following four elements:

“The chemical formula 1 shall be transferred to high molecule molecule products (hereinafter referred to as “entent components 4”) containing dysium infections (hereinafter referred to as “entent components 2”) and non-legal organic solvents (hereinafter referred to as “entent components 3”) which are expressed as chemical formula 1, which include molecule products (hereinafter referred to as “entent components 4”) which will be transferred to a high molecule molecule.” (The chemical formula 1 refers to Claim 1 in Annex 1).

According to the description of the above claim, the invention of this case in question presents three elements of "a dynasium dynasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium synasium simp

However, in relation to the elements of the instant Claim 1 invention, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there is no difficulty in composition as to the elements 2 (Lithium salt) and the elements 3 (non-water-organic organic wholesale) that are generally used in the high molecularization of Lithium secondary batteries, which are generally used in relation to the elements of the instant Claim 1 invention, and that the same composition is initiated in the comparable inventions. In addition, it is necessary to look at only the elements 1 and 4 that are substantially disputed between the parties, except for these two elements.

(B) As to components 1

The components 1 are “multi-brupt 1 flusium (chemical flusium 1 flusium) indicated as chemical type 1, and this is a highly molecular component of a high molecule character that can be transferred to high molecule by reaction with heavy molecule, and the content of technology using TAEI as chemical 1 flusium is indicated in the implementation of the invention in this case. However, the comparable invention as a component corresponding thereto is defined as “a flusium or flusium with two or more flusiums that generate high molecule weapons by an external line,” and is defined as “a flusium or flusium with the same flusium (chemical 1 flusium 31 flusium 31 flusium flusium 31 flusium flusium flusium 4” as an “telusium flusium flusium 2.

(C) Composition 4

The components 4 are “components” generated from a combination reaction among the components 1 to 3, which contains high molecules produced from a combination. The results consist of high molecules generated from a combination of chemical food 1 Monos and 2 of the elements, and non-legal organic solvent 3 of the components. Among the components, components 2 and 3 of the components are the same as those of comparable inventions. As such, the elements 4 of the components are the same as the foregoing. Accordingly, the technical characteristics are merely limited to the high molecules created from a combination of chemical food 1 Monos of the constituent element 1. Accordingly, the comparison of the composition of the high molecules and comparable inventions with the composition of the comparable inventions 4 of the constituent element 4 can easily be derived from comparable inventions.

1) The defendant's assertion

With regard to the heavy components 4, the Defendant asserts that the patent application invention of this case is "the multiple flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium, and the high molecule flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium, and non-water organic solvent flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium

2) Criteria for judgment

In a case where the claim of a patented invention was made in an open form, such as “including ...”, there is no change in the circumstance that the patent invention contains all the elements that are not explicitly stated in the claim of the patented invention even if it is implemented in addition to all the elements that are not mentioned in the patent invention, and such practice falls within the scope of the patent right of the patented invention, and furthermore, the claim mentioned in the above form is expected not only to include the elements explicitly stated but also to include other elements.

In addition, since the technical meaning of the claims can be understood accurately by taking into account the detailed description, drawing, etc. of the invention, the interpretation of the matters described in the claims shall be based on the general meaning of the text, and shall be objectively and rationally after considering the technical significance of the invention to be expressed by the text, taking into account the detailed description, drawing, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240, Dec. 22, 2006). In order to objectively and reasonably interpret the terms described in the claims by taking into account the detailed description and drawing, it shall be determined by taking into account the purpose of the patent application, relationship with the past technology, operational effect pursued, organic difficulty of composition, etc. In particular, in interpreting the phrase "including" described in the claims of the high-molecular chemical field, such as the invention in the patent application in this case, considering that the chemical invention is an invention in the claim of the patent application in this case, it shall not be deemed that the chemical invention includes all the elements that it is possible to include the invention in the claim, and it shall not include the meaning and the detailed meaning and effect of the invention in this case.

3) Specific review

According to the text of the phrase “including between two and half” of the constituent elements 4, there may be room to interpret that the composition of a brupted product is included in the composition of a brupted product, in addition to the chemical type 1 frus, in addition to the chemical type 1 frus.

However, in light of the fact that in the highly molecular synthetic technology, the form of a heavy body created depending on the specific conditions of reaction or what is the components involved in the reaction, it is difficult to clearly specify the form of a heavy body created by itself as to what kind of a heavy molecular composition and the composition and chemical structure of the highly molecular character.

Therefore, in order to clarify this, the detailed description of the specification of the invention in the application of this case should be considered. According to the detailed description, the invention in this case has technical significance to use an chemical 1 fluoride as a material for the formation of high molecule character, and as a result, it can be added to less than 95 fluoral weight at the chemical 1 fluoric acid compound at the chemical 10 fluoric fluor, and as a result, it can be used to manufacture high molecule compound at the same time as teAEI only fluoral fluoral dluoral dluene, carprophal dluene, carprophal dluene, etc. at the same time, the content of the application of this case can be seen to be less than 1 fluoral ethyl compound at the same time, and the content of this case can be seen to be less than 3 fluoral ethyl compound at the same time as the above one fluoral compound at different time in light of this case.

However, examining the corresponding structure of the comparable invention compared to the elements 4, the detailed description of the specification of the comparable invention is as follows: (a) the highly molecule character consists of a PMA consisting of high molecule high molecule and high molecule high molecule (see, e.g., evidence 3-2, 29-30). The physical-type high molecule is as follows: (b) the combination of household bridges is e.g., TEI; (c) the formation of the uniform structure and the commercialization between high molecule and high molecule; (d) it is desirable to combine them with one terEI in combination with ethyl tercrylates, etc., with high molecule agents; (e.g., high molecule agents, etc.; (e., see, e., e., see, e., e., e., e., average 00 to 00 if it is possible to combine them with the e.g.

Therefore, in full view of the contents examined so far, the elements of the instant Claim 1 invention 4 are different from the chemical type 1 Monos, in a case where the instant invention contains any ethyl implosion chemical compound, which is expected to be carried out in a detailed explanation, as well as the composition of the instant invention, if it is included by adding the ethyl implosion chemical compound as a product for the development of the chemical substance, and thus, the ethyl implosion compound can be formed by a solid molecule of the public combination that is combined with them. However, the structure or nature of the instant invention is different from the composition of the chemical structure forming the ethyl structure in the process of a large molecule reaction with the large molecule of the instant invention.

Furthermore, in the patent application invention of this case 1, the chemical type 1 multiples were used as a major synthetic part to form a high molecular character that will be transferred to high molecule, and the virtual bridge (TAEI) of the comparable invention is used as a chemical type 1 multiples, but due to its molecular structural characteristics, it is limited to a material known as a general bridge in the relevant technical field, which is used as a component to improve the mechanical strength of the PMMA by changing the physical strength of the PMMA with a high molecule and a high molecule structure. Therefore, both inventions have a big difference between the purpose or effect of the PMMA and TAEI.

In addition, even when examining the chemical structure and nature of a medium combination that has been put in and formed as a result of the chemical combination of comparable inventions, the result of the combination of inventions is the structure of a high molecule character which is composed of a mutual invasion structure between the high molecule and the high molecule of PMMA high molecule of the TAEI, and these two physical-type high molecule high molecule are generated, and these two physical-type high molecule are the structure of the mutual invasion structure. The above mutual invasion structure is compared to the structure in which two or more physical-type high molecule high molecule are linked within the molecule scope and the chemical combination cannot be separated unless the chemical combination is destroyed (refer to the evidence A7 and 8). Even if the entire specifications were combined, it is difficult to understand that the results of the combination of inventions include the MP as a result of the combination of products, and thus, it is difficult to understand that there is a difference in the composition or the composition of the material in the art of the art.

Therefore, it is objective and reasonable interpretation to view that, as the cited invention, the combinations forming a high molecular of the instant Claim 1 invention, the high molecular substance of the structure, which is a single body that is not separated from one another without chemical action, is not included in the technical scope of the combinations.

Thus, the composition of response to the instant Claim 1 invention 4 and the comparable inventions is identical in that the composition of response to the instant Claim 1 contains TAEI Monos in the composition of the high molecule, but there is a difference not only between the composition of the high molecule character in the middle-sized compound product generated by combining the created products, but also between the chemical structure, it is difficult to easily derive from the response composition of the comparable inventions even if it is an ordinary technician.

(D) Composition Preparation Results

As seen earlier, the instant Claim 1 invention is difficult to form, as there is a significant difference in the composition and chemical structure of high molecule character in the middle and high molecule properties in the combination between the cited inventions and the high molecule properties.

(4)Preparation for effects of action

The patent application invention of this case aims to improve the problem of lowering the performance of the batteries in the case of using polychrenitesiums to be transferred to the previous high molecule, and according to the detailed description, it can be confirmed that there is a significant excellent effect in terms of the inter-clock characteristics, safety, and salleing characteristics of the batteries (see e.g., e., the lower court’s 8 to 6 pages 14 from the lower court’s 5 pages No. 3).

(5) Arrangement of preparation results

Therefore, the invention claimed in paragraph 1 of this case is different for a specific purpose in comparison with the cited inventions, and its inventive step is not denied because it is recognized as the complexity of composition and the increased operational effect.

B. Whether the patent application invention of this case is inventive step

The patent application invention of this case 2 is a subordinate invention embodying the patent application invention of this case by limiting or adding to the patent application invention of this case. Thus, the nonobviousness of patent application invention of this case 1 is not denied unless the nonobviousness of patent application invention of this case is recognized.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 and 2 is recognized in comparison with the cited inventions.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of this case, which differs from this conclusion, is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)