A. Criteria for determining the inventive step of the patent application invention

B. Criteria for determining the inventive step of the invention for application combining prior art for public use;

A. Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990) purport of Article 6(2) of the same Act is that even if an invention claimed in a patent application is new technology that can be used for industrial purposes, if it is a creation that can be easily derived from the existing technology, it shall be deemed lacking inventive step and if it is not granted a patent. The degree of the difficulty in the creation that measure such inventive step should be determined by considering the difference in its technical composition and action effects, and the composition of the applied technology shall be different from the prior art, and the inventive step of the applied invention shall be recognized in light of the purpose of the patent system that seeks to promote the advancement and development of the technology, only if it is remarkably improved compared with the prior art.

(b) If the invention claimed in the application is a combination of prior art known to the public, it is recognized that there is a separate difficulty in integrating the prior art, or that there is a new rise effect beyond the expected effect from the prior art known to the public, and that there is no further recognition of the inventive step of the invention, unless it appears that a person with ordinary knowledge in that field could not easily make the invention by the prior art, or unless it appears that a new technical method is added.

Article 6 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Hu769 delivered on Nov. 24, 1989 (Gong1990, 149) 90Hu601 delivered on Dec. 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 483) 90Hu564 delivered on Jan. 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 753) 90Hu1277 delivered on Oct. 11, 1991 (Dong) 86Hu27 delivered on Feb. 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 435) 88Hu516 delivered on Jul. 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1235) 88Hu7699 delivered on Nov. 24, 1989 (Gong1949)

Attorney Kim Won-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 590 dated June 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The provisions of Article 6 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 190) purport of Article 6 (2) of the same Act is to recognize the inventive step of a patent-related invention in light of the purpose of the patent system that seeks to promote the inventive step in a case where the patent-related invention is a new technology that can be used for an industrial purpose, if it is a creation that could easily be derived from the existing technology, it would lack inventive step and grant a patent without granting the patent (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Hu601, Dec. 11, 1990; 9Hu601, Oct. 15, 1995).

In addition, even if the invention claimed in the application is combined with the existing prior art for the public use, it is recognized that there is a separate difficulty in integrating the prior art, or that there is a new increase effect above the expected effect from the prior art for which the action effect is publicly known, and where a person with ordinary knowledge in that field is deemed unable to easily make an invention by the prior art, or where a new technical method is added, the inventive step of the invention should be recognized. However, if there is no separate difficulty in integrating the existing technology for the public use, or if there is no new increase effect beyond the expected effect from the prior art for which the prior art has already been publicly known, the inventive step of the invention shall not be recognized (see each of the Supreme Court Decision 86Hu27, Feb. 10, 1987; 8Hu769, Nov. 24, 1989).

2. 기록에 의하면 본원발명은 별지 일반식(2)의 3-페녹시 벤질-2-(3-할로게노-알콕시페닐)-2-메틸프로필 에테르를 트리페닐포스핀, 요오드화금속, 전이금속촉매(염화니켈, 염화철, 염화코발트, 염화티타늄 등) 및 물의 존재하에서 50℃ 내지 150℃의 온도로 상압하에서 10시간 아연과 탈할로겐화 반응시켜 별지 일반식(1)의 3-페녹시 벤질-2-(4-알콕시페닐)-2-메틸프로필 에테르를 제조하는 방법이고, 선행기술인 인용례1(일본 공개 특허공보소 59-73535호)은 별지 일반식(2)'의 물질을 PDC(파라듐 카본) 촉매하에서 110도씨의 온도로 상압 또는 가압하에서 12시간 수소와 탈할로겐화 반응시켜 별지 일반식(1)'의물질을 제조하는 방법이며, 선행기술인 인용례 2(Jorg chem. 1982.47. P2622-2625)은 위 전이금속 촉매(염화니켈, 염화철, 염화코발트,염화티타늄등)를 촉매로 사용하여 할로겐화 유기물에서 탈할로겐화 시키는 방법임을 알 수 있고, 본원발명과 인용례1을 대비하여 보면 구조식이 동일한 할로겐화물을 출발물질로 하여 탈할로겐화 공정을 거쳐서 구조식이 동일한 목적물질을 제조하는 것으로서 그 출발물질, 목적물질 및 공정의 목적이 서로 같고, 다만 인용례1은 탈할로겐화시의 촉매로서 PDC(파라듕카본)을 사용하고, 그 공정상 수소를 사용하는데 비하여 본원발명은 탈할로겐화시의 촉매로서 전시한 전이금속 촉매를 사용하고, 그 공정상 물을 사용하는 점에서 서로 다르나 본원발명의 기술구성에 있어 이용된 전이금속 촉매와 물의 사용방법은 인용례2에서 공지된 기술임을 알 수 있으므로 본원발명은 그 발명에 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자라면 인용례1과 인용례2로부터 용이하게 발명할 수 있는 것에 불과하고, 소론의 작용효과 또한 공지된 선행기술인 위 각 인용례로부터 예측되는 효과 이상의 새로운 상승효과라고도 할 수 없다.

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the original invention was an invention without inventive step and maintained the original condition of refusal to grant a patent, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to inventive step, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment.

However, in the original adjudication, there was an error of finding that the hydrogen was caused by reaction of smoke and water in judging the mechanism of the main invention, but even if considering this, the main invention cannot be recognized as inventive step, it is reasonable in the conclusion that the main invention cannot be recognized as inventive step. The argument is groundless.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)