The case holding that the invention subject to confirmation is not included in the scope of the right of a patented invention, since the patented invention, the name of which is "a automatic control method and automatic control system", is changed due to the temperature change based on the temperature change, while the invention subject to confirmation is an independent operation of the indoor temperature-based control pansium and repeated control pansium based on the reduced indoor temperature and repeated pansium or established values depending on the difference in the composition and effects of the patented invention.

Article 135 of the Patent Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Gyeongdong-N Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Jeon Soo-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo2509 Decided September 29, 2006

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

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement submitted after the expiration of the period) are examined.

1. As to whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right under paragraphs (1) through (4) of the patented invention of this case

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below determined that the challenged invention in the judgment of the court below does not fall under the scope of the right of the Claim No. 1, since the challenged invention in the judgment of the court below (Patent No. 284834) of this case (Patent No. 284) and the Claim No. 1 (Patent No. 284, Patent No. 284, Patent No. 28834) are subordinate claims cited in the Claim No. 1 of this case, and the claim No. 1 of this case were prepared for the challenged invention in the judgment of the court below, and since the corresponding composition and effect of the challenged invention in the judgment of the court below are different from that of the challenged invention in the judgment of the court below, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. As to whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the inventions of paragraphs 5 through 18 of this case

A. As to the Claim 5 invention of this case

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is erroneous in the court below's determination that the elements of Paragraph (5) invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case 1 are composed of the composition of the composition of the operating period and the value of the suspension period during the first-time period, and there is no limit to the claims, and since detailed explanation does not include only such elements 1, it is not erroneous in the court below's determination that the elements of Paragraph (5) invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this 1 are the composition of producer's expense according to temperature change based on temperature change based on temperature change. However, the response composition of the invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this 5 is the composition of the challenged invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this kind 3.

B. As to Claim 12 invention and Claim 13 invention of this case

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, since paragraph (12) invention of this case is subordinate to the invention of this case cited in Paragraph (5) invention in the premise of the claims, it refers to the control signal combination method in Paragraph (5) invention of this case. Meanwhile, since the control signal combination method in Paragraph (5) invention of this case changes according to temperature change based on the temperature base, it is identical to the above, the invention subject to confirmation in the judgment of the court below does not fall under the scope of the right to the Claim 12 invention of this case on the ground that it is seen in Paragraph (5) invention of this case. Further, Paragraph (13) invention of this case does not fall under the scope of the right to the Claim 12 invention of this case on the ground that it is identical to Paragraph (12) invention of this case, since the control signal combination method in Paragraph (5) invention of this case refers to the control signal combination method in Paragraph (5) invention of this case.

In the same purport, the court below is just to determine that the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to the invention in the claim 12 of this case and the claim 13 of this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles which affected the conclusion

C. As to the remaining dependent claims

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the inventions in Articles 6 through 11, 14 through 18 of this case are all subordinate claims which re-cites the inventions in paragraph (5) of this case and the inventions in paragraph (5) of this case citing the inventions in the premise of claims, or re-cites the claims in paragraph (5) of this case and paragraph (12) of this case citing the claims in the premise of claims. Thus, unless the challenged invention in the judgment of the court below does not fall under the scope of claims in paragraph (5) of this case and paragraph (12) of this case, the judgment of the court below does not naturally fall under the scope of claims in Articles 6 through 11, 14 through 18 of this case, which are their subordinate claims, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment

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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)