The meaning of other person's use under Article 45 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act, which is a ground for cancellation of trademark registration.

Article 6(2) of the Patent Act provides that even if the invention claimed in a patent application is a new technology that can be used for industry, if it is a creation that can easily be derived from the existing technology, it shall be deemed lacking inventive step, and the patent shall not be granted. Thus, there is no established standard for determining the degree of difficulty in the creation to measure the existence of inventive step, but at least, if the operating effect of the applied invention is significantly improved compared to the operating effect of the prior art, it is reasonable to recognize the inventive step of the patent application invention in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote and develop the inventive step of the prior art, if the patent application invention is publicly known, and if the patent application invention is combined with the prior art, it is difficult to recognize the inventive step of the patent application invention in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote and develop the inventive step of the prior art.

Article 6(2) of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu72 delivered on April 26, 1983, 83Hu85 delivered on April 9, 1985, 85Hu25 delivered on September 29, 1987, 83Hu38 delivered on February 23, 1988

Applicant 1 and 2 others

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 588 decided on March 31, 1988 by the Appeal Tribunal of 1987

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If an invention claimed in a patent application under Article 6 (2) of the Patent Act can easily be claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, by means of an invention described in the publicly known, publicly known, or published publication, the invention is ineligible for a patent, even if it is a new technology that can easily be derived from the existing technology, if it is a creation that would lack inventive step, and would not grant a patent. Thus, the standard for determining the degree of difficulty in the creation to measure such inventive step has not been established, but at least if the effects of the applied technology have considerably improved compared with those of the prior art, it is reasonable to recognize the inventive step of the first application invention in light of the purpose of the patent system intending to promote development (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Hu72, Apr. 26, 1983); if an invention claimed in a patent application is publicly known, or where an invention in a public use, an invention in question can easily be seen as having a new one with prior art or a new one with prior knowledge expected effect after being declared in the prior art. 2985.

According to the original decision, the court below held that the summary of the invention of this case is about the manufacturing method of a decoration using tin as an agent, and it is not recognized that the substance of the patent application of this case is a manufacturing method of a decoration using tin, and if it is deemed that the substance of the patent application of this case is not identical to that of a natural tin, the substance of the patent application of this case is not identical to that of the original tin, and the shape of the tin, which is composed of two kinds of marcing methods, such as galphical and marcium, and the marcing of the 120 through 150 degrees above 120 degrees above 120 and 150 degrees above 120, and then the marctic marc marc marc marc marc marc marc marc marc marc marc marc marc marc m.

However, even if the technology which designs the pattern of non-explos using an anti-explos as an agent mentioned above, can be easily created by the existing technology, it shall be strengthened to the extent that it is closely adhered to the substitute in the pattern of non-satis, and it shall be strengthened to the extent that it is closely adhered to the substitute on the surface of the substitute board in which the pattern of non-satis is devised, and it shall be further strengthened to the degree of strength, and it shall be possible to achieve the purpose of preventing the satisfin from the satisf and its color change, and if its effect is remarkably improved compared to the existing technology mentioned above, it shall be deemed as the creation of non-obviousness technology in light of the legal principles as seen in the above holding, and unless there are special circumstances, the applicant shall be more easily determined that the invention of satisfinum is a creation that can easily be derived from the prior technology, and according to the records, the applicant shall be able to prove that the invention of satisfinium is an industrially identical product in the shape and satus.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)