The case holding that (a) inventions are identical in terms of purpose, technical composition, and action effects of the former side, using patented invention as to the manufacturing method of the former side, and the former side's manufacturing method of the former side's use;

The case holding that (a) inventions are identical in terms of purpose, technical composition, and action effects of the former side, using patented inventions as to the manufacturing method of the former side, and the former side's manufacturing method of the former side, and the latter are identical.

Article 135 of the Patent Act

Patent Attorney Song Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and two claimant-appellants, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Attorney Jeon-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 401 Dated December 31, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the first, second, and third points

According to the original decision, the court below examined the invention (A) by comparing the invention with the patented invention (hereinafter referred to as "the invention") and (a) the patented invention is related to manufacturing methods for one side of the two inventions, and compared to the manufacturing methods for one side of the two inventions (a) the two inventions are designed to enhance the aesthetic and long-term effects of one side by using one side of the two sides, so its purpose is the same, and it is not different from the technical composition of the two inventions since the two inventions are technically composed of spreading first-invinyl chloride (in order to achieve its objective, we can find that the two inventions are identical in terms of improving the degree of strength of one invention by spreading the above one side, and the effect of removing one side of the two inventions is different from each other by using one side of the two inventions (a) the two inventions are identical in terms of improving the shape of the two inventions, and thus, it is not appropriate to conclude that the two inventions are identical in terms of their effect to one another by using one another, and thus, the two inventions are different from the one another's composition of the two inventions.

In light of the records, although the judgment of the court below and its judgment are somewhat insufficient, all of the results are just, and there are no errors of incomplete deliberation, lack of reason or omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit.

However, the court below judged that the patent invention of this case and the patent invention of this case belong to the same category as the patent invention of this case under the premise that the patent invention of this case and the patent invention of this case are not the publicly known art, although the patent invention of this case are not the publicly known art, it is different from the (a) invention of this case from the publicly known art of No. 1.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)