(a) Newness and inventive step of a device added to, or combined with, an known public technology;

(b) The case reversing the original decision on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the originality and inventive step of the device, as long as the application is filed with respect to the manufacturing device of self-satisfying drinking water;

A. Under the Utility Model Act, a device refers to a technical creation utilizing rules of nature, or unlike inventions as referred to in the Patent Act, if there is a technological progress raising the utility value by the shape, structure, or combination of the product, a new device is not required. Therefore, if a device has a new technical device by systematically combining the device in the previous publicly known art, it shall be an industrial device corresponding to a new punishment for the product even if it is an additional structure. Even if the device is combined with the publicly known art, if it is an industrial device, it shall be considered as an industrial device corresponding to a new one for the product. In addition, even if the device is combined with the publicly known art, it shall be considered as a new and non-obviousness device if it is recognized that the action effect which has been promoted before the combination is recognized, and if it is not easy for a person with ordinary knowledge in the art

B. The case reversing the original decision on the ground that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the originality and inventive step of the device, as long as the application for the manufacturing device of drinking water is not new and non-obviousness

Article 5 (2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of January 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Hu865 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 267) 90Hu441 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 636) 91Hu1816 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong192, 2280)

Patent Attorney Hong Jae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1708 Dated March 25, 1992

The original adjudication is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the design of this case is a manufacturing device of drinking water. The court below, prior to the application for the design of this case, disclosed water quality improvement device using hond permanently hond mar permanently in Japanese Patent Office [U] No. 58-78195 (No. 26 pages). Before the application for the design of this case, water purification equipment was disclosed as prescribed by the Design Gazette of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (S. No. 673 (No. 4, No. 28 of the record) before the application for the design of this case, it is obvious that the physical or biochemical properties, etc. of this case are improved. The design of this case is a quality improvement technology or water quality improvement technology of drinking water. The device of this case, unlike the above publicly disclosed device, is easily arranged at a specific distance outside the distribution range of hond 20, and eventually, constitutes a self-defense device of this case 19, which is composed of mond 9 independent of the device of this case.

2. The term "design Act" means a technical creation utilizing rules of nature; however, unlike an invention as defined in the Patent Act, there is a new technological progress that enhances the utility value by the shape, structure or combination of goods. Thus, if a device has a new technical device by systematically combining the device with the previous publicly known device, it shall be an industrial device corresponding to a new punishment on goods even if it is an additional structure. Even if the device combines the publicly known technology, if it is an industrial device, it shall be an industrial device corresponding to a new one on goods. In addition, if it is not a simple set of action effects on each technology prior to the combination, but a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology is recognized, and if it is not easily implemented, it shall be deemed a new and non-obviousness device (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hu54, Nov. 11, 1986; 86Hu117, Jun. 13, 199; 197Hu138, Jun. 16, 1982).

According to the records, in order to increase the self-defense capacity, the applicant placed a huge range of opposition to the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the front part of the device to strengthen the self-defense capacity and at the same time installed outside the upper part of the device to prevent the external release of the self-defense. The previous device claims that the device of this case was made at a certain interval between the distribution pipe and the self-defense (record 6,24,82 of the record) and that the device of this case was made at a certain interval of time so as to resolve the inconvenience such as the closure of the distribution pipe by attaching miscellaneouss on the inner part of the distribution pipe, and that there was a technological progress in the new operation effect of the prevention of the distribution control, which was irrelevant to the previous device, and the new operation effect of the prevention of the distribution control in the upper part of the device, and the arrangement of self-defense capacity or the distribution control shall not be considered to have been easily implemented by considering the special knowledge that the device maintained between the distribution pipe and the self-defense wall in order to prevent the installation of the inner part.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant device was a device that could be easily implemented without examining whether the device of this case increased self-defense capacity or whether it was a new device that could prevent the closure of the distribution hall, while recognizing that the device was designed to place a stone, unlike the previous device, and maintain a certain interval between the distribution hall and the distribution hall, was an unlawful act that affected the decision of the lower court, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the composition and arrangement of a stone, etc., of the device’s ability expressed in the external organization, such as the composition and arrangement of a stone, or the newness and inventive step of the device.

There is reason to point this out.

Therefore, the original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.