[1] Criteria for determining the originality and inventive step of a device under the Utility Model Act

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that denied the non-obviousness of the registered appeal compared to the cited appeal

[1] The term "official device" as prescribed by the Utility Model Act refers to the creation of a technical idea utilizing laws of nature, or unlike inventions as defined in the Patent Act, if there is a technological progress that enhances the utility value by the shape, structure, or combination of goods as the device does not require high level of creativity, and thus, if the device is equipped with a new technical device by systematically combining the device with the previous publicly known device, even if it is an additional structure, it shall be an industrial device corresponding to a new punishment on goods. Even if it is a combination of the publicly known device, it shall be deemed as an industrial device corresponding to a new one on goods. In addition, even if it is deemed as a combination of the publicly known technology prior to the combination, it shall be deemed as a new and non-obviousness device if it is recognized that the utility effect higher than the one having ordinary knowledge in the art, and if it is not easily implemented by a person having ordinary knowledge

[2] The case holding that the court below erred by failing to exhaust all the deliberations on the core professional engineer of both devices, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for the simplification and inventive step of the device, on the ground that both devices have no substantial difference, such as where both devices have corresponding elements, and the person virtue and the person who has ordinary knowledge in the technical field are merely different in terms of the concept, and that the registered device can easily be designed on the basis of the cited device, since the registered device and the cited device are different from the registered device and the cited device are different in terms of their purpose and technical composition and action effects, the registered device is deemed to have satisfied the requirements for originality and inventive step.

[1] Article 5 (2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 4 (2)) / [2] Article 5 (2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 4 (2))

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1880 delivered on November 28, 1997 (the same purport) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Hu2080 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 676) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1787 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 395) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu982 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 672)

Large-scale Agriculture Power

Taejin Electric Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Jeong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94Da141 dated September 30, 1996

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that the registered device of this case is identical to that of the non-permanent voltage No. 47682 of the Intellectual Property Office on May 18, 1990, and the purpose of the non-permanent voltage No. 1 of the non-permanent voltage No. 4 of the non-permanent voltage No. 9 of this case, which is identical to that of the non-permanent voltage No. 1 of the non-permanent voltage No. 4 of this case, is identical to that of the non-permanent voltage No. 4 of the non-permanent voltage No. 9 of this case, and the non-permanent voltage No. 9 of the non-permanent voltage No. 9 of the non-permanent voltage No. 2 of this case, and the non-permanent voltage No. 9 of the non-permanent voltage No. 1 of this case is identical to that of the non-permanent voltage No. 1 of this case, and the non-permanent voltage No. 9 of the non-permanent voltage No. 2 of this case is identical to the non-permanent pressure No. 9.

The term "official device" under the Utility Model Act refers to the creation of a technical idea utilizing rules of nature, or unlike inventions as referred to in the Patent Act, if a device does not require a high level of creativity and thus enhances the utility value by the shape, structure, or combination of the goods, and thus, if a new technical device is installed by systematically combining the device in the previous official art, it shall be an industrial device corresponding to a new punishment on the goods, even if it is an additional structure, and even if it is deemed a device combining the publicly known art, if it is deemed an industrial device combining each technology, it shall be an industrial device corresponding to a new one on the goods. In addition, even if it is deemed a device combining each technology in the public art, it shall be registered under the Utility Model Act as a new and non-obviousness device (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Hu982, Jan. 23, 196).

In light of the record, in order to block the flow of electricity in the previous type of the electric voltage control device, the low resistance was used in the previous type of the electric voltage control device. Since there are problems such as the use of the low resistance, heat has occurred when the use of the resistance was caused, the characteristic of the composition parts of the electric voltage control device has been weakened, etc., in the registration form of the instant case, the relevant person used a stitu which generates the stituity and polarization in order to maintain the constant voltage without using the said resistance, and also the technology aimed at reducing the heat suppression, efficiency, and total scale in the output voltage device through the technical combination of the two transformers by the reverse voltage and output voltage devices. In the cited form of a low resistance device pointed out as a problem in the instant registration form, it is basically different from the two devices.

Furthermore, in the registration of this case, according to the change of output voltage, the automatic voltage adjustmentIC selected in accordance with the conditions set in advance, according to the conditions set in advance by the electric voltage change, it obtains approval for the electric current on the power line of the proportional voltage apparatus subject to the reduction or exemption of the output voltage of the reverse voltage apparatus, and accordingly automatically adjusts the output of the reverse voltage apparatus at a certain price. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the reverse voltages and output voltages within the registered appeal of this case do not play the same role as the reverse voltages and output voltages within the registered appeal of this case, and there is no possibility of compatibility or equal objects. Moreover, since the virtue of the registered appeal of this case does not occur, the role or function of the bar of the cited proposal which generates the heat of the resistance is different from that of the strings of the registered appeal of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the professional engineer of the same criminalism is a professional engineer.

Therefore, since both devices are different in their purpose, technical composition, and operation effects are different, the instant registered device in the instant registered device satisfies the requirements of newness and inventive step. However, the lower court determined that both devices do not have any substantial difference, such as both devices having corresponding elements and merely difference between the person and the person in the virtue, and that the instant registered device could easily be designed by the cited device by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field. Accordingly, the lower court’s decision in the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the technical expert in both devices, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements of newness and inventive step of the device, which affected the outcome of the trial decision. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit (the first instance court stated that the claimant is the representative of the agricultural electricity and thus it is unclear whether it is a natural person or a juristic person).

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)