[1] The case where the nonobviousness of a patent invention is denied when determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art documents

[2] Where the nonobviousness of a patented invention is denied by limiting the scope of the elements of the invention publicly known prior to the filing of the application in numerical value

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284 Decided September 6, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1582), Supreme Court Decision 201Hu1814 Decided July 25, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2011Hu115 Decided May 16, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu2620 Decided July 23, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu326 Decided November 27, 2015 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu1299 Decided November 16, 207; Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu498 Decided August 19, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu25326 Decided August 24, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2014Hu28425 Decided August 26, 2010

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Patent Attorney Shin Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

주식회사 쎌바이오텍 (소송대리인 특허법인 정안 담당변리사 배성렬 외 1인)

Patent Court Decision 2014Heo9208 Decided February 5, 2016

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on inventive step

A. In determining the inventive step of a patented invention by citing various prior art references, the inventive step of the patented invention is denied in a case where a person who has ordinary knowledge in the art at the time of the application of the patented invention in question (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily conduct such combination in light of the technical level at the time of the application of the patented invention in question, technical awareness, basic tasks of the relevant technical field, development tendency, demand of the relevant industry, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.).

A patented invention limited to the scope of the elements of an invention publicly known prior to the filing of an application in numerical value is limited only to the extension of the publicly known invention and its effects are different only from the existence of numerical definition, and there is no significant difference in the effects inside and outside the limited numerical scope, the inventive step is denied because it is merely a simple numerical limitation to the extent that an ordinary technician can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu1299, Nov. 16, 2007, etc.).

B. We examine the above legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the court below.

1) The Plaintiffs’ instant patent invention (patent number omitted) is an invention under the name of “the device that is separated from each other”. The Patent Tribunal’s patent claim No. 2015No20 dated October 30, 2015 (hereinafter “patent claim No. 1”) compared with the prior invention No. 1 is as follows.

A) The main components of the instant corrective invention, which form the separation and distribution of the asphalt body, the main components of which are the corrective invention under paragraph (1), are as follows: (a) the composition of the container, the exhauster, the distribution apparatus, and the distribution tank manufacturing tank is included in prior inventions 1; and (b) the composition of the container is identical to that of the instant invention. Paragraph (1) of the amended invention and the first invention 1 of the prior inventions, all of the materials of the materials for preventing the production of the mixing body.

B) Prior invention 1 is an invention related to a dead biological reaction for the cultivation of miscarriage germs. The prior invention has a professional engineer prize who seeks to obtain high concentration equality by continuously removing the suppressions by installing a samix samix in order to overcome the existing samixing method with falling productivity. It is common to the corrective invention of Paragraph 1.

C) However, the corrective invention under Paragraph 1 is, in order to reduce the shock or resistance power of the fluids flowing inside the pipe and the inner walls of the pipe (hereinafter referred to as “intestorororum power”), the material of the penet in the Zircon-twitum is limited to 3 meters of the inner diameter of the pipe, and it is different from the prior invention 1 in that there is no such limit.

2) Before filing an application for the instant patent invention, there are three materials, such as Altramina, Zirconia, Zitia, and Titania, which are generally used in the fields of domination. In particular, even prior inventions 5 also contain three mixturess of Zcon-Titia’s material.

3) According to the specification of the instant patent invention, there is no indication as to the relation between the Z-Al (Al) and the Z-Ti (Zl-T-Ti (Zl-T-Ti) of the Zl-Al (Zl-T-Ti) as evidence. The Plaintiffs submitted as evidence the test result (A evidence No. 11) comparing the Zl-Al (Zl-T-Ti) with the Zr-Ti (Zl-T-Ti) in the lower judgment, and asserted that the hmix-T-Tl-T-Trm material has a favorable effect in terms of the hmarity survival rate because there is a difference between the hmar-T-Tralm material and the harm content of the instant patent invention and that there is no objective condition on the comparison with the practice of the Plaintiff 2, etc. However, even if considering the content thereof, it is difficult to conclude that there is a difference not only in the size of the harrative substance but also in terms of the st temperature.

4) In the specification of the instant patent invention, “com mbrae,” the fiber diameter of which increases 0.3 m or 1m from the fiber diameter. However, in order to reduce the inner walls strawing power, the specification of the instant patent invention states to the effect that “the inner mbrae is less than 2-4m or less than the inner m of the fiber diameter, and thereby, the inner mbrue is less than the inner m. In addition, it is difficult to see that there were technical limits, etc. that the fiber diameter cannot exceed 0.3m or 1m in the fiber length. In addition, the specification of the instant patent invention does not appear to have more superior effect than the 3m limit in the case of adopting the numerical diameter limited to 3m, such as the correction invention in paragraph (1) of this case. The specification of the instant patent invention contains no description that the Plaintiffs were 15m or more of the outer m. m. m. (the outer m. 15m-m. m. m.) of the outer compound in the claim No. 3m.

On the other hand, there is no ground to view that there is a significant difference between the three-meter value and the outer diameter of the fiber, which is limited to the interior of the fiber, the said numerical scope is merely a simple numerical limitation to the extent that a person with ordinary skills can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments.

5) Prior to the filing of the instant patent application, the art of evidence 1, 5, and 10 No. 10-1 of the Prior Invention 1, 5, and 10 cannot be seen as different since the art of the Prior Invention 1, 5, and 10-1 of the Prior Invention 1, 5, and 10 was applied to the field of water treatment using micro-organism as well as the quantity of micro-organisms, such as miscarriage germs, prior to the filing of the instant patent application. The purpose of the Prior Invention 1, 5, and 10-1 is either to achieve the purpose of preventing the separation of all the foregoing prior inventions, or naturally to include such purpose. A person with ordinary skills, applying the aforesaid prior inventions, makes the substance smooth flow without the storage of a foreign substance, and thus, the failure to reduce the degree of proof of proof to occur due to a foreign substance accumulated in the separation. Accordingly, it cannot be said that a person with ordinary skills can not be said to have achieved the effect of reducing the proof of the wall through the aforesaid prior inventions.

C. In light of the above circumstances, Paragraph 1’s corrective invention ought to be deemed to be denied inasmuch as it can easily be combined with the prior invention 5 and No. 10-1 based on the prior invention 1 by a person with ordinary skills.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the corrective invention of paragraph (1) of this Article is not denied on the ground that the prior inventions could not be easily derived from the prior inventions, on the grounds that there was no technical idea presented to the prior inventions in order to select a stringer material or to regulate the inner diameter of the fiber inside the stringer, on the grounds that the technical idea cannot be derived from the prior inventions, such as the three-meter radius of material in the matr-Tring body material and the inner diameter of the string body.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the inventive step of a patented invention, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)