The sampling system (Law Firm CNS et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14484 decided May 1, 200

July 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 24, 2012 on the case No. 1341 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) Invention name: Automatic control device in consideration of the heating load;

(2) Date of application/priority filing date/registration date/registration number: August 19, 2009/ April 29, 2009 (registration number omitted)

(3) Patent holder: the plaintiff;

(4) Claims and principal drawings: Attached Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Claim 1 of this case”, and the remainder of claims shall be described in the same manner) of the patented invention.

(b)the earlier application invention;

On April 29, 2009 (application number omitted), the Plaintiff filed an application for an invention concerning “regular flow automatic control device” on the basis of the priority claim of the instant patent invention. The main contents of the specification and drawings initially attached to the earlier application are as shown in attached Table 2.

(c) Cited inventions;

(1) Cited Invention 1 (A No. 5)

Cited Invention 1 is related to "heating device" inserted in the Patent Gazette for Registration publicly announced on June 10, 2009, and its main contents and drawings are as shown in attached Table 3-1.

(2) Added Invention 2 (A No. 6)

Invention 2 is related to “integrating and heating air conditioning,” which was published on March 10, 200 and published on March 10, 200, among “written examination of freezing machine technicians/industrial engineer”. The main contents are as shown in attached Form 3-2.

D. Details of the instant trial decision

(1) On June 13, 2011, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the instant Claims Nos. 1 and 5 on the ground that: (a) inventions of the instant Claims Nos. 1 and 5 are newly added without the specification or drawings attached to the initial patent application, which is the basis of the priority claim; and (b) inventions of the instant Claims Nos. 1 and 5, can be easily described from comparable inventions by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”); and (c) even if the date of determining the patent requirements of the instant Claims Nos. 1 and 5 is retroactive to the date of claiming a priority of the instant Claims No. 1 and 5, on the ground that the instant Claims No. 29(3) of the Patent Act is substantially identical to the cited Invention 1 and thus, are in violation of Article 29(3) of the Patent Act.

(2) On February 24, 2012, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling citing the Defendant’s request for the trial on the grounds that the elements for patent of the instant Claims 1 and 5 are not disclosed in the specification or drawings initially attached to the application for an earlier application, and thus, the nonobviousness is denied on the grounds that the instant Claims 1 and 5 can easily be seen from the inventions, and thus the nonobviousness is denied.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and the issues of this case

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

① The instant Claims 1 and 5 are identical to the inventions described in the specification or drawings attached to the initial patent application, which is the basis of the priority claim. As such, the date of determining patent requirements is retroactive to the date of priority claim. ② The instant Claims 1 and 5 do not violate Article 29(3) of the Patent Act because they are not substantially identical with the cited Invention 1, and ③ even if the date of determining patent requirements for the instant Claims 1 and 5 is not retroactive to the date of priority claim, the nonobviousness of the instant Claims 1 and 5 is not denied since ordinary technicians can easily make inventions from the cited inventions.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

① In the instant case, the date of determining patent requirements is not retroactive to the date of priority claim because the specification or drawings attached to the first application of an earlier application, which is the basis of priority claim, are newly added, and the date of determining patent requirements is not retroactive to the date of priority claim. ② The instant inventions Nos. 1 and 5 are non-obviousness because ordinary technicians can easily make inventions from comparable inventions. ③ Even if the date of determining patent requirements of the instant inventions Nos. 1 and 5 is retroactive to the date of priority claim, the instant inventions are in violation of Article 29(3) of the Patent Act in substance identical to the instant inventions No. 1 and

C. Key issue of the instant case

Ultimately, the key issue of the instant case is ① whether the date of determining the requirements for patent of the instant Claims 1 and 5 is retroactive to the date of claiming a priority right, ② whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claims 1 and 5 is denied if retroactive, ③ if retroactive, whether the instant Claims 1 and 5 violate Article 29(3) of the Patent Act.

3. Whether the date of determining the requirements for patent of the invention Nos. 1 and 5 of this case is retroactive to the date of priority claim

A. Criteria for determination

Article 55(1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 985, Jan. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) that applies to the inventions 1 and 5 of this case provides that "a person who intends to obtain a patent may claim a priority on the invention described in the specification or drawings initially attached to the patent application or utility model registration application for which he/she has the right to obtain a patent or utility model registration (hereinafter referred to as "Earlier application") and Article 29(1) and (2) of the former Patent Act provides that "any person who intends to obtain a patent may claim a priority on the invention described in the specification or drawings initially attached to the patent application for which he/she has the right to obtain a patent or utility model registration, among inventions described in the patent application claiming a priority, shall be deemed to have been filed at the time of the filing of the earlier application."

Therefore, in order to be retroactively applied to the date of determining the requirements for patent of the first and fifth inventions in this case, the invention of the first and fifth inventions in this case constitutes the invention described in the specification or drawings initially attached to the earlier application.

B. Preparation for the composition of the instant Claim 1 invention and the earlier application invention

(1) Composition of Claim 1 invention of this case

The Claim 1 invention of this case is a water pipe (2); the water pipe (4); the water pipe (5); the recovered pipe (7); the recovered pipe (10) the water quantity of which has been recovered outside the household by gathering one of the quantity of the recovered pipes (5); the temperature Section (110) has been installed separately for each room to measure the indoor temperature of the room; the air conditioners (120); the air conditioners (120); the air conditioners (120); the air conditioners (10); the air conditioners (10); the air conditioners) the water flow of the pipeline (5) has been installed separately in the pipe (120); the air conditioners (10) or (7) the air conditioners (10; 20) the air conditioners (10; 20) the air conditioners (20) or (7) the air conditioners (20) have been installed independently and have been changed to the air conditioners (10) the air conditioners (5) the air conditioners) of which have been removed by the air conditioners (120) or other air conditioners.

(ii)the composition of the earlier application invention;

According to the specification and drawings attached to the initial application for an earlier application, the invention of an earlier application shall be classified into “supply pipes (2) for the supply of hot water to each household unit”, “the hot water supply hedging (2) connected to the supply pipes (3) for the supply of hot water to each household unit” (4), “the hot water pipe (5) connected to the hot water pipe (4), and “the return pipe (5) connected respectively to the return pipe (6) connected to the return pipe (5), and “the return pipe (7) connected to the return pipe (5) connected to the return pipe (6),” and “the temperature control (110) installed individually for each room (5) and shall be installed separately in each room (120), and the flow quantity (7) installed in the return pipe (200), and shall be installed in the return pipe (7) so as to regulate the flow quantity of the return pipe (77) and shall be 100 30 10 20 20 120 120 320 20 320 20 20 320 2220 22220 22220 22220

(3) Preparation for the composition of the two inventions

The instant Claim 1 invention and earlier application invention have no difference in that they are equipped with a supply pipe, a hot water pipe, a pipeline, a redemption pipe, a temperature control room, an engine, a variable flow valve, and a control room. However, while the variable flow valve of the instant Claim 1 is installed in the redemption pipe or a supply pipe, the variable flow valve of the earlier application invention is installed in the redemption pipe (hereinafter “vehicle 1”). The instant Claim 1 invention differs from the fact that, considering the heating load of each room, the optimal flow value in proportion to the required heat of the relevant room is stored in the control room and reduces the flow of a variable flow valve in accordance with the ratio of the optimal flow value of the entire room closed to the sum of the total flow values, while the earlier application invention reduces the flow of a variable flow gauge in the proportion of the optimal flow value of the relevant room (hereinafter “vehicle 2”).

First of all, as to the difference 1, the specification of the earlier application invention is set up on the other side of the Bad (210) above, and it can be known that the Bad (250) is a component that limits the whole quantity of household flow by regulating the cross-area leading from the entrance of the above Bad (211) to the tamp (213) by controlling the cross-area leading to the tamp (211), (No. 4, No. 16, No. 059), and "the total quantity of household flow is restricted from the upper variable flow valve (200)" (No. 4, No. 12, No. 12, No. 039), and it can be said that the dynamic flow valve is a technical element that limits the total quantity of household flow by regulating the cross-area area of flow that passes the variable flow gauge, and this function can be carried out regardless of the location (supply or supply pipes), and it can be said that it belongs to the supply valve of the earlier application.

Next, as to the difference 2, the specifications of the earlier application invention include only the following: “each household may carry out several rooms with different sizes (the first, second, third, and n) as urbanized in the Do 2, and if it is assumed that the first bank is the largest and n bank is smaller for convenience, the necessary flow quantity for heating each room shall be proportional to the area of the room.” (No. 4 No. 10, 10, 031). Since there are no different provisions concerning the method for determining the quantity of flow reduced due to the suspension of heating, the “the quantity of the relevant room closed” which is the quantity of flow reduced due to the suspension of heating in the earlier application invention is interpreted as the necessary flow in proportion to the area of each room.

However, in the specification of the patented invention of this case, each household can be composed of several rooms with different sizes (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4) as urbanized in Do 2. It is general to think that the necessary heat for heating each room would be proportional to the area of the room. However, it is only a theoretical theory that the required heat is proportional to the area of the room. In fact, considering the heating load in the heating design, it is possible to change the area of the room and even if the area of the floor is smaller than the area of the floor, the area of the room may also change. (No. 2, No. 6-7, No. 059 / [060], and thus, it is necessary to distinguish the area of the target invention of this case from the area of the target invention of this case.

In addition, the control book of the Claim 1 invention of this case contains “the optimal flow value in proportion to the required heat of the relevant room taking into account the heating load of each room.” Generally, the heat quantity to be supplied to properly maintain indoor temperature refers to the quantity of heat to be generated through structural parts such as wall, roof, ceiling, floor, glass, door, etc., and the loss heat caused by a crepit wind or ventilation open air. Thus, in order to calculate the heating load, various factors such as heat control rate, structure size, indoor temperature, and external temperature should be considered. However, in an earlier application invention, the necessary flow quantity is calculated based on the area of the room. Since the area of the room is merely one of many persons constituting the heating unit above, it cannot be said that the required flow quantity of the earlier application invention contains all persons necessary to calculate the heating unit of the Claim 1 invention of this case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the optimal flow value of the earlier application invention of this case can not be considered as having been actually the same as the heating unit value.

(4) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

With regard to this, the plaintiff argues to the effect that the 5 to 7th Do of the earlier application invention contains the quantity of flow corresponding to the "minimum amount of flow", and that the specification of the earlier application invention contains the "minimum amount of flow" of paragraph (1) of this case, and that the specification of the earlier application invention contains the "abnormal value" that indicates the total amount of flow of the relevant household in calculating the total amount of flow according to the existence of each room heating (07) according to the existence of each room, and that the abnormal value of the earlier application invention is calculated taking into account heating load into account, and that the composition of the quantity of flow control based on the optimal amount of flow taking into account heating load is included in the earlier application invention.

In light of the fact that the specification and drawings of the earlier application invention are not indicated as to how the “minimum value” is sought, and it is not clearly known as to what meaning “minimum value”. The “minimum value” of the earlier application invention is used as a means of comparing the quantity of flow using a variable flow valve and the quantity of flow using the previous voltage flow valve (No. 4, No. 19-20 of the identification number [077] of the earlier application invention, and the specification and drawings of the earlier application invention do not contain a statement that the volume of flow is adjusted in accordance with the “minimum value,” anywhere the “minimum quantity of flow” of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is used as a means of regulating the quantity of flow necessary for heating according to the heating requirement quantity, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the “minimum value” of the earlier application invention is the same as the above “minimum quantity of flow” of each of the instant Claim No. 1.

(5) Results of preparation

Ultimately, the content of the “minimum flow value taking into account heating load” of the instant Claim 1 does not appear to have been indicated in the specification or drawings initially attached to the earlier application invention. Thus, the instant Claim 1 invention does not constitute an invention described in the specification or drawings initially attached to the earlier application invention.

C. Preparation for the composition of the instant Claim 5 invention and the earlier application invention

The 5 invention of this case is a subordinate claim citing the 1 invention of this case and includes all the composition of the 1 invention of this case. The 5 invention of this case limited to the heating unit stored in the control unit of the 1 invention of this case to "one room" of the 5 invention of this case, "the heating pipe rate x area x the defense index x the upper temperature x the upper temperature" of each side which constitutes one room. As seen earlier, the 5 invention of this case is calculated in proportion to the area of the room and the necessary quantity is calculated in proportion to the area of the room and the calculation method of the above heating unit is not included. Thus, the 5 invention of this case does not constitute the invention described in the specification or drawings initially attached to the 5 invention of earlier application.

D. Sub-committee

Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, Claim 1 and Claim 5 inventions do not constitute the invention described in the specification or drawings initially attached to the earlier application, and thus, the date of determining the patent requirement does not retroactively apply to the date of priority claim. Accordingly, Claim 1, which is the date of determining the patent requirement (the filing date) of Claim 1 and Claim 5 inventions in this case, may be used as data for determining the inventive step of Claim 1 and Claim 5 inventions in this case.

4. Whether the nonobviousness of the invention Nos. 1 and 5 of this case is denied

(a)technical preparation;

Inventions 1 and 5 of this case relate to automatic control devices in consideration of heating load (A No. 2, 3, identification numbers 001), and comparable invention 1 pertaining to heating systems that can reduce heating costs by controlling the flow of the total heating water flowing into households (A No. 5, No. 4, identification numbers ? 1).

The technical field is the same in that the invention of paragraphs 1 and 5 of this case and the comparable invention 1 are related to the device that regulates the flow of the total heating water flowing into a household according to each heating condition in multiple heating areas.

B. Preparation for the purpose

The purpose of the instant Claims 1 and 5 is to provide static automatic control devices to enhance heating efficiency, reduce heating costs, and solve noise problems through capitalization in response to the existence of each room’s heating, by controlling the total amount of oil flow to the degree of the required heat for each room when controlling the total amount of oil flow (i.e., the quantity of water flow corresponding to the required heat for each room) (i., the identification number of 5 pages 2, 043, 044).

The purpose of the comparisond Invention 1 is to provide heating systems to reduce heating costs and resolve noise problems arising from rapid speeding, by regulating the quantity of water flow of heating water supplied to households, taking into account the length of the unit of heating water installed in the open heating zone among multiple heating zones (A evidence 5 No. 4 of this Act).

The purpose of the instant Claims 1 and 5 is to reduce heating costs and resolve noise problems by controlling the quantity of the entire heating water flow according to the heating in the heating area, and the heating area 1 is identical. As such, the instant Claims 1 and 5 cannot be recognized as peculiar in comparison with the cited Invention 1.

(c) preparation for composition and effects;

(1) Claim 1 invention of this case

(A) Composition of Claim 1 invention of this case

The invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is a water pipe (2); the water pipe (4); the water pipe (5); the recovered pipe (7); the recovered pipe (10) the water quantity of which has been recovered outside the household after which the heat of the said water, which has been connected to each such water and has been connected to the hot water pipe (4); the recovered pipe (5) the water of which has been recovered after the heat exchange has been finished, shall be recovered; each room shall be installed separately for the purpose of establishing a desired temperature; the temperature Section (110); the air tank (120); the air tank (10) the water flow of the pipe (5) the water flow of which has been installed separately in the pipe (10); the air tank (120); the air tank (10); the air tank) the water flow of which has been removed in proportion to the water flow of the pipe (5); and the air tank (20) or (7) the water flow of which has been removed by any other electrical system (10) or 20) the air tank (20) temperature and the water flow of the above shall be removed (10).

(B) Composition 1

- - Section 1 of the Organization 1 shall be installed separately in the pipes (2) through which the water from each room is supplied to each household, and in the pipes (2) through which the heat from each room is connected to and connected to the hot water pipe (4) above, and the recovered pipes (5) in which the water from which the heat is recovered due to the connection with the hot water pipe (4) above, and the recovered pipes (7) in which the quantity of the recovered pipes (5) is recovered to the outside of the household, and the recovered pipes (7) in which the desired temperature of each room is established, and individually installed in the pipes (5) and installed in the pipes (2) above, to change the quantity of the recovered pipes (120), Section 10 to Section 4 (5) above, Section 20 to Section 10 to Section 10(7)(5)(20 to Section 110)(5)(hereinafter referred to as the "recognition valves"), Section 10 to Section 4(5)(5) above.

The two response components are the same in that they include the supply pipe, the hot water pipe, the water pipe (the unit of the heating water for the purpose of supply), the recovery pipe, the recovery pipe (the discharge pipe), the temperature control tank, the temperature control tank, the engine valve, the engine valve, the variable flow valve, the control tank (the valve control tank), etc. (this point is without any particular dispute between the parties).

(C) Composition 2

1) 2 Composition 2 : “The optimal flow value in proportion to the required heat of the relevant room shall be stored, taking into account the load load of each room, and the entrance (120) shall be removed from such room (120) to stop heating in accordance with the new signals of Section 110 of the above temperature, and the recovery pipe (5) passage of the relevant room shall be closed, and the flow of the variable flow valve (200) shall be reduced according to the ratio of the optimal flow value of the closed room to the sum of the total flow value of the area (100), the area temperature of each unit (80) shall be 9 minutes of the water-conditioning system (60 minutes of the water-conditioning system) and shall be 9 minutes of the water-conditioning system (60 minutes of the water-conditioning system) and shall be 90 minutes of the water-conditioning system (50 minutes of the water-conditioning system) of each unit (50 minutes of the water-conditioning system).

The both response structures are different in that the standard value (hereinafter referred to as "standard value") used to adjust the flow of heating water in the control unit (water control unit) is stored, the devices of the room in which heating should be suspended pursuant to the signals of the temperature control unit (water pressure saving unit), the passage of the recovery pipe (heating unit of heating water) is closed, and there is no difference in that the flow of the variable flow valve is reduced according to the ratio of the standard value of the room closed to the sum of the total standard value. However, while the invention of paragraph (1) of this case uses the "minimum flow value taking into account the heating load" as the standard value, the above response structure of the comparable invention 1 of the comparable invention is different in that the "the length value of the heating water unit" is used as the standard value.

In light of the above differences, Claim 1 inventions of this case and Claim 1 inventions of this case intend to perform optimal heating by controlling the total quantity of water flow corresponding to the required heat for each room when controlling the total quantity of water flow in response to the existence of each room (No. 2, No. 5, and No. 10, No. 5, No. 79), and the method of seeking the necessary heat for each room (No. 1, the method of seeking to use the heating system including both the loss heat transmitted through structural structure and the loss heat to heating equipment, ② the method of seeking the use of the heating system including only the loss heat transmitted through structural structure, ③ the method of seeking the use of the heating system, ④ the size of the heating system, pipeline No. 1, and the average quantity of heating equipment, and the method of calculating the length and quantity of each unit of the heating system (no. 2, No. 044, No. 79).

2) On this point, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in the pipe design, the pipeline design criteria or specifications criteria for the disclosure standards of the housing construction are not relevant to the demand quantity of each room, and that, inasmuch as the pipeline design does not require each room, the pipeline design is not performed in an abnormal length (the length of a unit of heating water) and the standard for disclosure standards or specifications of the housing construction is not determined, it is impossible to accurately meet the optimal length of pipelines because it is not possible to take into account the realistic elements such as the form of the room, the pole, the window, the window, and the minimum amount of the pipe material. Thus, the pipeline length of comparable invention 1 is not related to the demand quantity of each room taken into account, and therefore, the instant Claim 1 invention, which adjusts the flow quantity according to the optimal value, the ideal value of which is considered to be installed, is different from the composition and effect of comparable inventions 1, which actually regulates the flow quantity according to the length of the pipeline.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since the plaintiff's claim does not exclude the heating load, it is considered together with the heating load, so it is not a value that the length value of the unit of the heating water of comparable invention 1 does not take into account at all the heating load, and it can be easily selected by an ordinary technician to take advantage of the flow quantity necessary to control the total volume of the heating flow in response to the existence of each room, and the effect is determined by the selected person, and it is merely a degree that the ordinary technician can have sufficiently predicted. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

(D) Results of preparation

Ultimately, each composition of Claim 1 invention can be easily derived from the composition of comparable invention 1’s corresponding response structure, and its effect can also be sufficiently predicted.

(2) Claim 5 invention of this case

The claim 5 invention of this case is a subordinate claim citing the claim 1 invention of this case, and it is limited to the heating unit stored in the control book of the claim 1 invention of this case to "one room is added to "the heating pipe rate x area x defense coefficient x temperature x the upper temperature" of each side which constitutes a single room, and the fact that the heating unit can be calculated by the above formula is part of the technical formula clear to ordinary technicians (No. 6 of the evidence 302 of this case). Thus, the above restriction structure of the claim 5 invention of this case can be easily derived by the ordinary technician in consideration of the technical sense, and the effects therefrom can be sufficiently predicted.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the inventions 1 and 5 of this case are identical with the inventions 1 of the cited inventions, and there is no specificity for the purpose compared with the cited inventions. The composition can easily be derived from the corresponding composition of the cited inventions by a person with ordinary skill, so there is no difficulty in composition, and its effect is merely that a person with ordinary skill can anticipate from the cited inventions, and thus, there is no apparentness of effect. Thus, the nonobviousness of the inventions 1 and 5 of this case is denied.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the trial decision of this case is legitimate in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)