B&Methyl Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Lee Do-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Hand Co., Ltd.

December 6, 2011

1. The part of the decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 29, 201 with respect to the case No. 2010Da2332, the claims for the utility model registration (registration number omitted) shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Two-thirds of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

Of the decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 29, 201 on the case No. 2010Da2332, the part regarding claims for a utility model registration (registration number omitted) shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The registered complaint of this case

(a) Title of the device: Connection structure between a steel team and a steel team;

2) Date of application / Date of registration / Number of registration: December 29, 2005 / (registration number omitted) April 10, 2006

3) The owner of the utility model right: Defendant

4) Claim(s) and main drawings: Attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “claim(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(1)(s)

B. Compared Gossis

1) Comparison 1

The publication of December 31, 2003, published in the Patent Gazette No. 2003-96811, published on December 31, 2003, is related to the "tactic team, such as subways, which does not do so." The main contents and drawings thereof are as shown in attached Table 2-1.

2) Comparison 2

The Patent Gazette published on September 19, 2003 is related to the "ther team report established according to a axis in the open soil and sand construction method" inserted in No. 2003-74118 (Evidence A6) and its main contents and drawings are as shown in the attached Table 2-2.

3) Comparison 3

The Japanese Patent Gazette (No. 8) published on January 7, 1997 is a device related to "a device of "a quouting and cutting off soil of brickworks excavation and structures for soil," published in the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 9-3898 (No. 8) and the main contents and drawings thereof are as shown in attached Table 2-3.

4) Comparison 4

The main contents and drawings of the Japanese Patent Gazette, published on September 24, 1996, are related to the "tampers for excavation home" inserted in the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 8-246459 (Evidence A9) and are as shown in the attached Table 2-4.

5) Comparison 5

On November 4, 2002, the Patent Gazette No. 2002-83583 (Evidence A 11), published on November 4, 2002, is related to the "refluent plates of the fleets and methods of strings using steel flusssium reinforcement plates and steel pots construction using them" and its main contents and drawings are as shown in the attached Table 2-5.

6) Comparison 6

On November 11, 2005, the Patent Gazette No. 2005-106703 (Evidence A 12) published on November 11, 2005 is related to "the connecting structure of earth and sand and but team newsletter and its connecting method," and its main contents and drawings are as shown in Appendix 2-6.

7) Comparison 7

With respect to “the structural absence in which metal application has been made available” as stated in the Patent Gazette No. 5457929 (Evidence A 13) which was patented on October 17, 1995, and its main drawings are as listed in the Appendix 2-7.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for registration invalidation trial against the Defendant, who is the owner of a utility model right, on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied on the grounds that the registered petition was easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field from the prior art publicly notified before the filing of the petition (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

2) After the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated on this issue as No. 2010Da2332, July 29, 2011, the design of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 2, 11, and 12 of the instant Claim for Registration was denied by prior art publicly notified prior to the filing of the application, but the remaining devices were not denied by non-obviousness, and some of the devices were dismissed.

2. Claims by the parties and the issues of the instant case

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The devices of paragraphs 3 through 10, 13 through 18 of this case are denied non-obviousness based on the comparative idea, so their registration should be invalidated, respectively. Among them, the devices of paragraphs 7 through 10, and 14 through 18 of this case are not yet available for industrial purposes, and their registration should also be invalidated pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Utility Model Act, since they are not yet available for industrial purposes.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Each claim claimed by the plaintiff does not deny the inventive step, but does not fall under the non-obviousness device.

C. Key issue of the instant case

It is the possibility of industrial application of the instant devices for the purpose of paragraphs 7 through 10, 14 through 18, and the inventive step of the instant devices in paragraphs 3 through 10, 13 through 18.

3. Whether the industrial applicability of the devices of paragraphs 7 to 10, 14 to 18 of this case is possible

A. The Plaintiff’s design of this case is indicated in its claims as “the first reinforcement board (612,614), which is inserted into both sides of the first basic board (51,513) and inserted into the said 400 platform team team team (400) and combined with both sides of the river pipe team (400).” However, the first reinforcement board (612,614), which is inserted into the river pipe team (400) and combined with the first reinforcement (812,814), can not be combined with the assistant team (400). Thus, the Plaintiff’s design of this case is also a device that could not be used for industrial purposes because it is impossible to implement it, and the design of this case is also a dependent device of this case for the same reason as the design of this case, and there is no possibility of industrial applicability, and the design of this case is also a dependent device of this case’s 15 to 184(1)4(1) of this case’s industrial utility model of this case.

B. First, the claim(s) of this case is 1-6 1-1-2-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-2-2-2-2-2-2-14-2-2-14-2-6-2-1-6-2-3-2-1-2-1-6-2-1-6-2-2-14-1-6-2-2-6-2-14-2-2-14-2-6-2-1-6-2-1-6-2-1-6-2-3-2-14-1-6-2-1-6-2-1-6-2-14-2-14-2-14-6-2-14-2-6-14-2-14-2-14-6-2-14-6-2-14-2-14-6-14-2-14-6-2-18-2-6-614-2-2-2-3-3-14-2-2-3-3-

C. Also, the design of this case 14 also has industrial applicability for the same reason, and the design of this case 8 to 10, which is his subordinate claim, and the design of this case 15 to 18 are also recognized as industrial applicability. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit.

4. Whether or not the inventive step of the instant devices in paragraphs 3 through 10, 13 through 18 was made

A. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 3 device is inventive

(i)to prepare for technology and objectives;

The design of this case 3 and the comparative device 1 to 4 are all related to the connection structure between the butter team, and the technical field is the same.

The design of this case 3 aims to provide a stronger team connecting structure that is convenient and convenient for the construction of earth (see evidence 1-3, e.g., evidence 1-7, e., e., e., e., evidence 1). The comparative device 1 aims to provide construction methods for the butter team reporting method that does not do not do so superior to the previous technology when large-scale excavation works are performed, economic feasibility, and safety in comparison, and to achieve this, it is intended to change the butter team report from H-Bea, the existing butter team report form to the class (see, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

The comparison table 1 used the lecture officer instead of the previous H beamline to provide a balton team construction method without balphishing. As such, the connection structure between the lecture room, the belt room, and the lecture room and the jacker is provided. Thus, the design of this case 3 is not recognized as peculiar compared to the comparison table 1 in that point, in that sense, the characteristics of the purpose of this case are not recognized.

(ii) preparation for components and operating effects;

A) Technical composition of the instant Claim 3 device

The design of this case is "(3) 1 or 2, the second reinforcement board (601, 603) to be substituted by the 1 reinforcement board (602, 604) above is "the connection structure of the Gangnam Group 300 (100) or 2 linked 50 (100, 200) connected with the 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 2nd 50 (2nd 50th 6th 6th 6th 60th 6th 60th 6th 60th 6th 60th 6th 60th 6th 60th 6th 5th 60th 6th 5th 60th 6th 6th 60th 6th 5th 60th 6th 6th 60th 6th 50th 2nd 50th 50th 2nd 502th 205th 2th 5202th 5th 25th 202th 6th 6th 6th 202th 6th 6th 2222222th 2th 222th 222 above respectively.

B) Of components 1-1

The components 1-1 are "Gangerber Team (400) established between the belt president (100) and 2 belts (100,200) or between two belts (100,200), which correspond to the composition (2 of the evidence No. 5), which is established between the belt leader and the belt leader (see, e.g., the drawing No. 5), and the two response structures are identical in that they are the stronger team leader established between the belt leader and the belt leader. In addition, the stronger team of the two response structure is the compressing material and the cross direction structure is safe compared to the H class lecture, and it is also identical in that it is possible to omit the middle vertical burner team and the balton, thereby reducing costs and securing work space.

(C) preparation for components 1-2a

The components 1-2a are “the first basic board (502,505) that is linked respectively to both sides of the upper lecture platform but the upper lecture team (400).” They correspond to “the basic board that is linked respectively to both sides of the lecture team report” (see the drawing 2 of the evidence 5), and the two response components are identical in terms of the basic board that is linked respectively to both sides of the lecture team report.

(D) preparation for components 1-2d

The components 1-2d are linked to the first basic board (502, 505) above and inserted respectively into both sides of the platform but the first reinforced board (602, 604) where the contact with both sides of the platform 1 team (400) above is linked, and the first reinforced board (602, 604) where the contact with both sides of the platform 400) is linked," which is linked to the top side of the platform 1 of the comparative column 1, “the first reinforced board (602, 604) adjacent to the upper part of the platform 1, which is linked to the upper part of the platform 1, and which is linked to the upper part of the platform 1, and which is linked to the upper part of the platform 2, the difference between the strong team 1 and the upper part of the outer upper part of the platform 5, which is linked to the upper part of the outer part of the platform 2, referring to the “the combination of the outer part of the combination 5,” which is linked to the upper part.

E) Preparation for components 1-2b, 1-2c, 1-2e (hereinafter referred to as “the remainder of components 1-2”) and 3 of the components.

3 as components that limit the remaining composition of the combined element 1-2 in detail are "the basic board (502, 505) concluded on the first basic board (501, 504), belts (200), and second basic board (501, 504) concluded on the 3rd basic board (500), and third basic board (501, 504) and third basic board (503, 506) concluded on the 3rd basic board (503, 503, 603) concluded on the 3rd basic base board (501, 603), it is found that there is no difference between the adjacent components in size and 1-2 from the 3rd basic base board (502, 603), and there is no difference between the adjacent components and the two adjacent components in size and 1-600, and there is no difference between the two adjacent components in size and 2-100,000,000 compared to the 3rd basic unit (6).06).

The defendant asserts that it is not reasonable to claim non-obviousness in comparison with the design of this case 3 of the comparative device 3 because the comparative device 3 is a product used to excavate a unit of butter team and wall, which is used for small-scale construction, such as drainage pipes and sewage pipes, the burner team 2) is a type of H lecture, the sweet £«s are connected with a unit of the sweet, and it is directly connected to the prop (1) without a belt.

However, as alleged by the Defendant, the comparative design 3 applies to small-scale construction. The comparative design 2 is recognized as being combined with the connected map (7) with H-type river without the belt, but it can be easily selected and implemented in consideration of the construction site situation or the structure of absence, etc. In order to connect with but the size of the comparative design 1 from the comparative design 1 to the but the same comparative design 3 connected map (7) does not have any obstacle in the combination with the same comparative design 3 in order to connect two absences, and eventually, if an ordinary technician is combined with the comparative design 1, the connected map (7) of the comparative design 3 can be combined with the comparative design 1 to the comparative design 1 to facilitate the composition of the remainder and 1-23 components. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

3) Sub-decisions

The design of this case 3 is identical or easily derived from each composition of comparable device 1 and 3, and its inventive step is denied since there are no differences in operational effects so that a person with ordinary skills can easily make a device from comparable device 1 and 3.

B. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 4 device is inventive

1) Technical composition of the instant Claim 4 device

The design of this case 4 is "10) 2. g. g. or 2 g. g. g. (300) g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. m. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. ))))) g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. k. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. m

2) Of components 4-1

The components 4-1 is "Gangerber Team (400) established between the belt president (100) and the belt president (300) or between two belts (100,200), which is identical to the constituent element 1-1. As examined in comparison with the above constituent element 1-1, the response composition, composition and effect of the comparative device 1 are the same as that of the comparative device 1.

(iii) preparation for components 4-2a

The components 4-2a are "the first basic board (51, 513) that is linked respectively to both parts of the upper lecture platform but team (400)" and is identical to the component 1-2a. As examined in comparison with the above components 1-2a, it has the same response composition and operation effect as that of the comparable device 1. As examined in comparison with the above components 1-2a.

4) Of components 4-2c

The components 4-2C is "the first reinforcement board (612,614) in which the parts of the first basic board (51,513) are combined on both sides of the said 1st basic board (51,513) and which is inserted respectively on both sides of the said 400 Gangwon-gu butter Team (400) are combined with both sides of the said 4-2d team (400), and is the same as the components 1-2d. As seen in the comparison with the said components 1-2d, it can be easily derived by a person with ordinary skills from the response structure of the said components 1-2d, and there is no difference in operational effects.

(v) preparation for components 4-2d.

The components 4-2d is "the 2nd-type reinforced material (81,813) that is parallel to the daily side of the 1st basic board (51,513) above, is inserted respectively into both sides of the 400th platform team team team team of Gangwon-gu (400) above, is combined with the contact part of both sides of the 5th team team team of Gangwon-gu (712,714) and entered into the 5th unit team of Gangwon-gu (712,714)." The 4-2d unit of the 4th unit of the comparable 4th unit of the 4th unit of the comparative 4th unit of the 5th unit of the 6th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the team of the 5th team of the 5th unit.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the comparative design 4 is used for small-scale construction, which is a unit of the burner team and the wall, and that it is not reasonable to claim a lack of inventive step in comparison with the design of paragraph 4 of this case, since the Tong (6,18) is connected to the Rolate (7) without a string reinforcement material, and it is directly connected to the string (1) without a belt, the composition, use, purpose, etc. of the design of paragraph 4 of this case are different from the design of this case, and only the four copies (6,18) of the comparative design of this case are separated from the design of paragraph 4 of this case.

Therefore, we can easily select and implement the comparison table 4, the comparison table 4, the combination of the basic board and the steel team report in the comparison table 1, and there is no obstacle to the combination of the basic board and the steel team report in the comparison table 4, and there is no obstacle to the combination of the comparison table 4, the combination of the comparison table 4, the combination of the comparison table 4, the combination of the comparison table 6, the combination of the comparison table 1, the comparison table 4, the combination of the comparison table 4, the combination of the comparison table 1, the comparison line 6, the comparison table 4, the combination of the elements 4-2d, the comparison line 6, the comparison line 1, the comparison line 4, the comparison line 4, the comparison line 6, the combination of elements 1, and the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

6) Preparation for components 4-2b and components 4-2e

The components 4-2b and components 4-2e correspond to the second basic board (512,514) and the first basic board (51,513) and the second basic board (512,514) combined with the second basic board (611,613) which are concluded on the basis (200) and the second basic board (512,514), and the second reinforced board (611,613), which are combined with the second basic board (61,613), which are combined with the second basic board (51,514). The two response components are the same in terms of their combination with the second basic board (200) and the second basic board (512,514), which are linked with the second basic board (4-2b) and the second basic board (614), which are combined with the second basic board (200), and the two response components are the same as the two adjacent components that can easily be combined with the other adjacent components and the two adjacent components are changed from the direction of the two adjacent components.

7) Sub-committee

The design of this case 4 is identical with the corresponding structure of the comparative device 1, 3, and 4, or could easily be derived therefrom, and there is no difference in operating effects, the inventive step is denied by the comparative device 1, 3, and 4.

C. Whether the invention of this case 5 is inventive step

The design of this case 5 is "in the claim 4, the first reinforcement board (612, 614) is a strong team connecting structure with a strong team with a characteristic of a + a shape of a shape. The first reinforcement board (612, 614) is + the composition of the shape of the design of this case ＋ the reinforcement board (refer to the second unit C-C drawings of drawings of evidence A 5) inserted inside the left-hand side of the strong team team of the comparative 1.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant 5 device is denied as it can be easily designed by a person with ordinary skills from 1, 3, and 4 of the comparable device.

D. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 6 device was made

The design of this case 6 is "for claims 4 or claims 5, the above 2 reinforcement board (611, 613) which leads to the 1 reinforcement board (612, 614) above is "the connection structure of a strong team team with which the 2 reinforcement board (611, 613) is characterized by the sloping shape + the 611, 613) of the above 2 reinforcement board (61, 613) is the sloping shape + the composition of the shape which is the sloping shape from the 3th of the comparison column 3 to the 5th of the comparison column (2) or between the attachment (6) and the attachment (6) and the attachment (6) of the sloping connect (7, A8 evidence drawings).

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 6 is denied as it could easily be designed by an ordinary skilled person from the comparative device 1, 3, and 4.

E. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 7 device was inventive

1) Technical composition of the instant Claim 7 device

The device of this case 7) is 2.5 basic plates (12,514) connected to 10.0 (30) or 2 belts (100,200) (hereinafter referred to as "groups 7-1"); 1.5 basic plates (51,513) combined to both sides of the above 400 Twitter Team (400) (hereinafter referred to as "groups 7-2a"); 2.5 basic plates (512,514) affiliated to 200 or 300 (hereinafter referred to as "entents 7-2,514) affiliated to 1.5 basic plates (5,511, 513); 1.2.6.6.6.1 and 4.6.6.1 and 5.4.6.6.1 and 5.4.6.6.1 and 6.4.6.6.1 and 5.6.6.1 and 5.6.15.2.12. of the Twitter (513) linked to both sides (40) combined) combined.40) combined.2.2.1.1.1.2

(ii) components 7-1;

The components 7-1 are "Gangerber Team (400) established between the belt president (100) and the belt president (300) or between two belts (100,200), which are the same as the component 1-1. As examined in comparison with the above component 1-1, the response composition, composition and effect of the comparative device 1 are the same as that of the comparative device 1.

(iii) preparation for components 7-2a

The components 7-2a are "the first basic board (511, 513) that is linked respectively to both sides of the upper Gangwon-gu butter Team (400)" and is identical to the component 1-2a. As examined in comparison with the above components 1-2a, it has the same response composition, composition, and effect as the response composition of the comparable device 1 in comparison with the above components 1-2a.

(iv) preparation for components 7-2b and components 7-2e;

The components 7-2b and components 7-2e correspond to the second basic board (512, 514), and the first basic board (51, 513), and second basic board (512, 514) combined with the second basic board (611, 613), which are concluded on the base board (200), and the second reinforced board (611, 613) which are combined with the second basic board (51, 512, 514). The two response components are the same in terms of their combinations with the upper base board (200), and the two response components are easily different in terms of their combinations with the upper base board (7, 8, and 300), but the two response components are different in terms of their mutual direction from the absence of the adjacent base board (7-2bb and 3, and the two response components can not be easily different in terms of their inter-sections and 7-2.

(v) preparation for components 7-2c and components 7-2d.

The components 7-2c and components 7-2d are linked to the daily side of the 1st basic board (51,513) and inserted respectively into both sides of the 5th Bert Team (400) above and combined with the first reinforcement board (612,614), and the first basic board (51,513) inserted into the two sides of the 5th Bert Team (400) and inserted into the 6th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 6th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 4th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 6th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 5th parallel with the 1st unit.

Compared 1 design 1 is combined on the daily side of the base board, and only 10 reinforcement board of its shape is initiated on the 5th platform 2nd platform 4th platform , and only 6th unit of the 5th unit inserted in the 7-2c unit and 7-2d unit of the 5th basic board (51.513) combined with the 1st unit (612.614), and 1st unit reinforcement (812,814) inserted in the 5th platform 16th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 1st unit of the 5th unit of the 1st unit of the 5th unit of the 12th unit of the 14th unit of the 2.

On this issue, the plaintiff asserts that, as the composition of Gap's fixeding (2) in Gap's evidence 10 (1) has been initiated by inserting the connecting (3) into the lecture (1), it can be easily derived from the above components 7-2c and components 7-2d.

However, the fixeding (2) inserted in the Twits No. 10 in the Twits No. 10 (1) is included, but the connection (3) is not included in the appearance of the Twits (1) but merely consisting of the absence of the Twins (1), and the fixeding (2) inserted in the joints (1) connecting the Twits (1) is combined with the first basic board (51,513) of the above components 7-2c and 7-2d from the 7-2c and components 7-2d from the Twits (51,513) and combined with the first unit board (812,814) inserted in the Twits Team. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, even if it is considered differently from the connecting structure and function, it cannot be easily drawn up.

6) Sub-decisions

The instant Claim 7 devices can be derived from the same or easy comparison structure as the response structure 1 and 3 of the comparable device, but the components 7-2c and components 7-2d cannot be easily derived from the comparable device, and their inventive step is recognized as having significant differences in the operating effect.

F. Whether the inventive step of the instant devices was made

Since both of the instant devices are subordinate claims embodying the composition of the instant claim 7 devices only, the nonobviousness of the instant claim 7 devices naturally exists insofar as the instant claim 7 device is non-obviousness.

G. Whether the inventive step of the instant claim 13 device is inventive

1) Technical composition of the instant claim 13 device

The device of this case 13) is "the 2 reinforcement board (62,624) to be substituted by the 15 reinforcement board (62, 624)" 2. The 2nd reinforcement board (621,623) to be replaced by the 12nd 2nd d.2nd d. 5th d. 2nd d. 2nd d. d. 22nd d. d. 5th d. d. 2nd d. d. 2nd d. d. 5th d. d. 2nd d. d. 5th d. d. 2nd d. d. 5th d. d. 5th d. d. 2nd d. d. d. 202nd d. d. 5th d. d. 202nd d. d. 5th d. d. d. d. 212221st d. d. d. d. d. d. d. e. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. 21212221222222222.

2) Of components 11-1

The components 11-1 are "Gangerber Team (400) established between 100 and 100 and 2 belts (100,200)" and are identical with the components 1-1. As examined in comparison with the above components 1-1, the response composition, composition, and effects of the comparable 1 are the same as those of the comparable 1.

(iii) preparation for components 11-2a

The components 11-2a are "the first basic board (521,523) that is linked respectively to both sides of the upper Gangwon-gu butter Team 400 (400)" and is identical to the component 1-2a, and the response composition, composition, and effect of the comparable device 1 are the same as that of the comparable device 1, as examined in comparison with the above components 1-2a.

(iv) preparation for components 11-2c

As components 11-2c are "the first reinforcement board (62,624) that combines the first basic board (521,523) on the one side of the upper base board, and is inserted into both sides of the stronger Team 400 (400) and is concluded vertically on the stronger Team 400 (400)." This is "the first reinforcement board (62,624) abutts on the two sides of the stronger Team 1, which is linked to the upper base board (521,523)" of the comparison 1, which is "the first reinforcement board (62,624) that is linked to the upper base board of the stronger Team 1, which is linked to the upper base board and combined with the 2nd unit of the stronger Team 1,523, which is combined with the 2nd unit of the stronger Team 1,500, which is combined with the 1,000th unit of the stronger Team 1, which is combined with the 1,001,000.

(v) preparation for components 11-2b and components 11-2d.

The components 11-2b and components 11-2d correspond respectively to the second basic board (522,524) concluded on the upper platform (200) or the connection jack (300) and the first basic board (521,523) and the second reinforced board (621,623) combined on the second basic board (522,524), which are combined with the second basic board (621,623). The combination of components 3 from the comparison 3 to the comparison 3 and the attachment (6) are combined with the upper base board, and the combination of components 11-2b and comparison 3 are easily identical in terms of their combinations with the upper base board, but the combination of components 11-2b and comparison 3 and the combination of components 1-2 and 2-1 (3) are different from the adjacent components in terms of the mutual direction of the comparison 1-2).

6) Sub-decisions

The design of this case 13 is identical to, or easily derived from, the corresponding structure of the comparative device 1, 3, and 5, and there is no difference in the operating effect. Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 13 design is denied since it can easily be designed by a person with ordinary skills from the comparative device 1, 3, and 5.

H. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 14 was made

1) Technical composition of the instant Claim 14 device

The design of this case 14) is 30 or less (40) and 14 basic plates (5 or less (531) connected to the above 20 or less (14 or less) 20, 30 or less (14 or less) 20 or less (14-2 or 40) 2 or 40 or less, which are linked to the 40 or less of the above 30-1 or less (40 or less) 2 or 40 or less to the 140 or less of the 30-1 or less of the above 14-2 or the 5-2 or less of the 140 or less of the 140-1 or less of the 140-2 or more of the 140-2 or more of the 140-2 or more of the 140-1 or more of the 140-2 or more of the 140-1 or more of the 140-1 or more of the 540-2 or more of the 140-10-1) of the above.

(ii) comparison with components 14-1

The components 14-1 are "Gerber Team (400) established between the belt leader (200) and the belt leader (300). It is identical with components 1-1 in that the Gangnam Team leader (400) is established between the belt leader (200) and the belt leader (300). As examined in comparison with the above components 1-1, it is identical to the response composition, composition, and operation effect of the comparative device 1.

(iii) preparation for components 14-2a

The components 14-2a are "the first basic board (531) combined with a single part of the regular lecture platform (400)." The first basic board (531) is the same as components 1-2a in that the first basic board (531) is combined with a single part of the lecture team (400). As examined in comparison with the above components 1-2a, the response composition, composition, and effects of the comparable high base table 1 are the same as those of the comparable base table 1, as described in the comparison with the above components 1-2a.

(iv) preparation for components 14-2b and components 14-2c.

The components 14-2b and components 14-2C are inserted into the first basic board (531) above, and are combined with the first reinforcement board (632) above and added to the first basic board (531) above, which combines with the first unit board (400) above and the first unit board (531) above, which combines with the first unit board (400) above, and are inserted into the first unit board (400) above, and are inserted into the first unit board (400) above, and are combined with the contact with the second unit unit (400) above, and are vertical reinforcement (832) and the second unit (831) which is concluded directly on the part of the day of the said Gangwon International Team (400), and the comparison with the first unit(72-27-27-27 and 77-27-2 of the combination components as mentioned above.

5) Preparation for components 14-2d and components 14-2e

The components 14-2d and components 14-2e are "the second basic board (532), and second reinforced board (631) combined with the first basic board (531) and the second basic board (532), which are concluded on the upper connection 300), and are the same as components 11-2b and components 11-2d. As examined in comparison with the above components 11-2b and components 11-2d, it can be easily derived from the corresponding composition of the comparable high technical base 3, and there is no difference in operational effects.

(vi) preparation for components 14-26 and components 14-2g;

Since components 14-2 and 14-2g are hard to match 44 above the comparison team of 4-1 and 44-2 below the comparison team of 4-2 above, the combinations of 3-4 and 5-2 below the combinations of 3-4 and 4-2 above, and the combinations of 3-4 and 6-4 of the combinations of 6-1 and 5-2 (the combinations of 43-1 and 5-4) combined with the combinations of 3-4 and 6-1 and combined with the combinations of 3-4 and 5-4 of the combinations of 6-1 and 6-4 of the combinations of 6-1 and the combinations of 3-1 and 6-4 of the combinations of the combinations of 3-4 and 6-1) combined with the combinations of 6-1 and the combinations of 6-14-2 (8333) combinations of the combinations.

With regard to this, the plaintiff asserts that the composition of Gap's fixeding (2) in Gap's No. 10 was initiated by inserting the connecting (3) into the lecture (1) and inserting the connecting (1) into the lecture (1), and see this, it can easily derive 14-26 and 14-2g of the above component. However, as seen in the above 3. E. 5, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

7) Sub-committee

The partial composition of the instant Claim 14 is the same as, or could be easily derived from, the corresponding structure of the comparative device 1 and 3. However, since components 14-2b and components 14-2c and components 14-26 and components 14-2g cannot be easily derived from the comparative device, and there are significant differences in operating effects, the instant Claim 14 devices are recognized as non-obviousness since they cannot easily be easily designed by ordinary skilled persons from the comparative device.

I. Whether the inventive step of the instant device was made

Inasmuch as the instant devices are subordinate to or limited to the composition of each of the instant devices, the nonobviousness of the instant devices is naturally recognized insofar as the nonobviousness of the instant devices is recognized.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the decision of this case which recognized the inventive step as to the invention of this case among the decision of this case is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation as to the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the remaining part is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)