[1] The method of determining inventive step where a claim described in the claim scope of the patented invention consists of multiple elements

[2] Standard for determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art documents

[1] In a case where a claim described in the claim(s) of a patented invention consists of multiple elements, whether each element is an object of the determination of inventive step, and each element is not an object of the determination of inventive step. Thus, in determining inventive step of a patented invention, the determination of inventive step of the patented invention should only be based on whether a number of components described in the claim(s) are dissatisfyed and dissatisfyed, and it should be based on the difficulty of composition as a whole that is systematically combined based on the principle of resolving particular tasks. In this case, the unique effects of the invention as a whole should also be considered.

[2] In determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art references, the inventive step of the patent invention in question shall be denied in a case where a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can easily make such combinations in light of the technical level at the time of the application of the patent invention in question, technical awareness, basic tasks of the relevant technical field, development tendency, and demand of the relevant industry, etc., as well as the technical level at the time of application of the patent invention in question, technical awareness, basic tasks of the relevant technical field, development tendency, etc.

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

Pakistan Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Popacter, Ink (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Shin Sung-ki et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2004Heo8756 Decided October 27, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, it is reasonable to view that the research report containing the cited invention 1 was a publication, which is located in a situation where many unspecified persons can be recognized from the time of publication in light of the form and content of the publication. Thus, the court below is just and just to consider the above document as a publication distributed prior to the application of the patented invention (registration number omitted) of this case and take the technology inserted therein as prior art of this case as the prior art of this case, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the publication distributed,

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 6

A. In a case where a claim described in the claim(s) of a patented invention consists of multiple elements, each element is subject to the determination of inventive step, and each element is not the subject of the determination of inventive step. Thus, in determining inventive step of the patented invention, the determination of inventive step of the patented invention should not be based only on whether multiple elements listed in the claim(s) are dissatisfyed and the individual elements dissatisfyed are publicly known, and it should be based on the principle of resolving particular tasks. In addition, in determining inventive step of the patented invention by citing multiple prior art documents, the unique effects of the invention as a whole should also be taken into consideration. In determining inventive step of the patented invention by citing several prior art documents, if the cited technology is presented in the literature, motive, etc. that the patented invention can be described in the prior art at the time of the application of the patented invention, or if it is not so, the person who has ordinary knowledge in the art at issue can easily be seen as a combination of the art at the time of the application of the patented invention in question.

B. The inventive step of the claim 13 of the patented invention of this case

(1) In light of the technical composition and the entire specification of the instant patent invention, the claim 13 of the instant patent invention does not place exploration factors in the search intrusion card itself, such as “the search intrusion network assembly consisting of several tampers from the surface of the search intrusion card,” which is an existing technology, such as “tamping cards,” but rather places “support floors with multiple search elements to search semiconductor devices,” separate from the search intrusion card,” and at the same time adopts “the change in the direction of support for the search intrusion card,” without changing the direction of the search intrusion card. As a result of the adoption of the aforementioned structure, if the overall compensation for the lack of tamping effect from the entire surface of tamping cards and the total compensation for the lack of tamping effect on the surface of the tamper and the total compensation for the lack of tamping effect on the surface of the entire tamper, the lack of tamping effect on the surface of the entire tamper.

(2) In the original adjudication, the “scamb card” of the comparable invention 1 includes a composition that regulates the reputation of members of semiconductor waferers or the PCB base board by virtue of the microscam control or personnel control equipped with the carbon rubber board and the flat board, and at the time of the original adjudication, the “scamb card” of the comparable invention 3 includes a composition that adjusts the distribution of card board (2) or semiconductor waferers by means of a double-scam (7) for flat coordination prepared in the card board (2) in the card board, and the “scamb card” of the comparable invention 13 is the same as the composition of the “scamb card changing the direction of the support board to the scambling card” of the claim 13 of the instant patented invention.

Furthermore, according to the specification of the patented invention of this case, the "francing ground exploration elements" in Claim 13 of the patent invention of this case are found to be a structure that can perform electrical connection by acquiring shot force by the pressure authorized at the free group when the free group of search contact each of the two combinations connected to semiconductor devices is established and fixed on the support base floor, and the part is extended to a certain length on the upper part of the support base floor and forming a free base freely movable. The other part is also a combination of Claim 7 (No. 150862, Jun. 13, 1989) or combination of Claim 13 (No. 1505) or combination of Claim 14 (U.S.C. 25, 195) of the patented invention of this case, which is lawfully admitted by the court below.

(3) However, the cited Invention 4 is an invention on “prob card,” which is a technical field like the Claim 13 of the instant patent invention, and, in comparison with the Claim 13 of the instant patent invention, there is no difference in the composition to adjust the distribution of “multi-story (110, 310)” as to “multi-story (10, 301)” with the claim 13 of the instant patent invention, except for the difference in the composition to adjust the distribution of “multi-story (10, 310)” with respect to “multi-story (10, 310)” in the literature (Evidence A) in which the cited Invention 4 is published, and there is no technical difficulty in adopting the aforementioned distribution structure in light of the technical composition.

(4) All claims 13 of the instant patent invention and cited inventions 1, 3, and 4 are related to prob cards or searched cards assembly, and it is essential for all contact points of the prob cards to ensure that all contact points of semiconductor devices can clearly contact with all contact points of semiconductor devices in order to inspect semiconductor devices. In addition, if the contact areas of semiconductor devices and prob cards are not accurately balanced, it is the basic purpose and task of the technology field to which the instant patent invention pertains. Moreover, if the contact areas of semiconductor devices and prob cards are not clearly balanced, it is necessary for all contact points of the instant patent invention to set up a method to achieve the equilibrium of semiconductor devices and prob cards as soon as possible, it is the basic purpose and task of the technological field to which the instant patent invention pertains (No. 5, 35, 079, Oct. 11, 1994).

(5) Meanwhile, the claim 13 of the instant patent invention can be said to have the effect of ensuring the electrical contact between the search factors and the semiconductor wafers, by systematically combining the composition to achieve the overall reputation and the composition to achieve the national reputation. However, such effect is difficult to be deemed as a significant effect beyond the outcome predicted from the combination of each of the above elements, and there seems to be no particular difference from the effect achieved by the “probs assembly” under the evidence No. 9.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the effect of the cross-areaization of the search area claimed by the defendant from the composition of the claim 13 of the patented invention of this case can be easily derived, and it is difficult for ordinary technicians to see that such effect can be inferred from the description of the specification of the patented invention of this case (the drawings 5b and related description).

(6) Although the fact that the patented invention has been commercially successful, it can be referred to as one of the data that recognizes the inventive step (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu1512, Nov. 12, 2004, etc.). As seen above, in this case where the technical review based on the specification of the patented invention in this case does not recognize that the claim 13 of the patented invention in this case has been more advanced than prior art as a result of the technical review, even if the defendant had been commercially successful through the implementation of the patented invention in this case, the inventive step of the patented invention in this case cannot be recognized solely on the

(7) Ultimately, the inventive step of the claim 13 of the patented invention of this case is denied. Although the court below's reasoning is somewhat inappropriate, it is proper to conclude that the inventive step of the claim 13 of this case of this case is unjustifiable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to inventive step of the patented invention of this case and the art of the patented invention of this case, incomplete hearing, violation of the rules of evidence, lack of reasoning, etc., as

C. The inventive step of the claim 16 of the instant patent invention

The claim 16 of the patented invention of this case is a dependent claim 13 of the patented invention of this case referring to the claim 13 of the patented invention of this case. "Spans franchises" in the claim 13 of the patented invention of this case. According to the specification of the patented invention of this case, "Spans franchises" are circuit boards where multiple singles (520,52) different from one another on the upper and lower surface are placed on the upper and lower surface, and the lower court concluded that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the composition of the patented invention of the cited invention of this case 4 of the cited invention of this case, and that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the composition of the patent invention of the upper and lower part (520) and the modification or diffusion of the skin by the lower part (522) of the upper part (101) as well as the 16th part (109th part) of the cited invention of this case.

D. The inventive step of the Claim 1, 3, 4, 27, 28, and 32 of the instant patent invention

The claims 1 and 3 of the patented invention of this case limit each of the claims 13 and 16 to "explacing elements" to "explacing elements," and the other composition is identical. Claims 4 limit each of the claims 1 to "explacing structures" as subordinate claims 1, and claims 27 and 32 expand each of the "explacing elements" in claims 13 and 16 to "explacing elements," and claims 28 limit "explacing elements" to "explacing elements," and thus, the nonobviousness of the extension of the grounds as seen in claims 13 and 16 is denied in the prior to the extension of the grounds as seen in the claims 13 and 16. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the grounds of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)