Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Yu-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Byung-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 9, 2010

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 29, 2010 on the case No. 2009Da472 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) Name of the invention: Blue lue lux;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: February 10, 2006/ March 19, 2007/ 0692988

(c) A patentee: The defendant;

(4) Claims

1. Claim 1. The depth (1) with a metal system consisting of the body in which the cosphering shape is arranged at regular intervals on the external side of the body above, and the dyp lusplates (20) with the upper part of the wall (hereinafter referred to as “conspher 1”), the core (1) and the wall (2) facing the upper part of the wall (hereinafter referred to as “conspher 1”), the upper part of the body (1) and the wall (2), and the combined home (31) through the combined 32 (3a) (hereinafter referred to as “conspher 2”) consisting of dyplates (hereinafter referred to as “conspher 1 invention” of this case, and the remainder of the claims are also filled in the same way).

2. In Claim 2. In Section 1 above, Reinforcements (3) are chlouds with the characteristics of the depth (1) and the upper part of the walls (2) and of the metal reinforcement test adjoining to the lower part of the claim.

3. In Claim 3. In paragraph 1 above, the reinforcement test (3a) consists of a bomb scopic scopble part, which consists of a upper part of the upper part of the claim, with the characteristics of covering a certain width.

(5) Drawings: as shown in Appendix 1, the major drawings of the patented invention of this case are as follows.

(b) Added invention (a evidence No. 9);

The comparable invention is an invention as to “a chrode, formed by dyeing bed,” which was filed on August 22, 2005 as the patent application No. 2005-0076865, and publicly announced on February 26, 2007.” The description and drawings of the specification and drawings attached to the initial application for the comparable invention are the same as those of the comparable invention No. 2, and the description of the description and drawings of the main drawings.

C. The procedural background

(1) On February 27, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Defendant, a patentee, on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patented invention is denied, on the grounds that the patented invention can be easily described by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art from the prior art publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

(2) After the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board examined the above case of invalidation trial as No. 2009Da472, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 29, 2010 on the ground that the nonobviousness is not denied by the prior art publicly notified prior to the filing of the patent application.

2. The parties' assertion;

In addition to the claim that the nonobviousness of the patented invention in this case is denied by the prior art publicly notified prior to the filing of the patent application, the Plaintiff added the claim that the patented invention in this case should be invalidated as it is the same as the comparable invention, which is the seafarer with the expanded patented invention.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the nonobviousness is not denied by the prior art publicly notified prior to the application of the patented invention, and that it is not identical to the comparable invention.

3. Whether the patented invention of this case and the comparable invention are identical

A. Criteria for judgment

The same invention means that the technical composition of both inventions is not only the case where the technical composition is entirely different, but also the case where it is partially different, the other part except the corresponding part is identical, or the two inventions are identical unless there are special circumstances such as the case where the invention of the same part becomes a new invention as an organic connected closely with a new invention. Although there are differences in the composition of both inventions, if it is merely a change to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field ordinarily employs, and it does not cause any special difference in the purpose and effect of the invention, both inventions are also the same invention (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Hu30, Aug. 20, 1985; 90Hu154, Jan. 15, 1991; 2007Hu2797, Sept. 24, 2009).

B. Determination of comparison between the Claim 1 invention and the comparable invention

(1) Composition 1

㈎ 구성 1의 세부 구성요소

The composition 1 of Claim 1 invention of this case is "the body (1) in which metal is made and the body (20) in which the body is placed at certain intervals on the outer side of the body, and the body (20) in which a number of supporting bars (21) formed by the upper home (21) are used in the vertical direction," and is specifically divided into "the body" and "the body (2)" adjacent to the body.

㈏ 심체 부분에 관한 판단

In the case of No. 1 invention of this case, "the core" of No. 1 invention of this case is "the metal product, the cosping shape is the cosphering shape, and the outer side is adjacent to the vertical direction of a large number of supporting bars (20). In this regard, the detailed description of the patent invention of this case states "the core (1) is the cosphering, and "the core of the wall constitutes the inner frame of the wall and the solid nature against the internal pressure," and the wall (2) is written as "the wall (20) is adjacent to the outer side of the body (1) and constitutes the wall" (2 of evidence No. 3).

In light of the detailed description of the instant patent invention, the body (i) from 1 to 200 to 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 ought to be deemed as constituting “the component of the instant Claim No. 1 to ensure that the body (i) is a metal product, is made in the co-raying shape, and multiple support seals (20) are used in a vertical direction, thereby constituting a structural frame on the wall’s inner side.”

In response to this, the comparable invention has started the composition of the upper part of the display (21) and the lower part of the display (22). In relation to the specification of the comparable invention, the specification of the comparable invention states as follows: “The upper part of the screen space with a straight diameter is cut by a refrouting in a refrout to the upper part of the screen and the lower part of the screen, respectively, that is, the upper part of the screen space and the lower part of the screen shall be fixed respectively to the inside part of the upper part of the cover and the lower part of the screen, so that the upper part of the screen space and the lower part of the screen space can be maintained in an empty form in its original form.” (A No. 9)

In light of the foregoing stated in the specification of the comparable invention, “a component to ensure that the open space can be maintained solidly by making the upper part of the material fixed in the vicinity, namely, metal, and forming the inner frame of the upper part of the open part (16) and the lower part (17)” of the comparable invention, “a component to ensure that the open space can be maintained solidly,” which consists of metal materials, the inner frame of the open part (or the upper part, the lower part, the lower part), and thereby maintaining the shape of the open part (17)” is the same as the core of the first part of the instant Claim No. 1 in that the shape of the open part can be maintained firmly.

However, while the depth of the instant Claim No. 1 is a string shape, the lower side display of the cited invention differs in its original form from that of the instant Claim No. 1. However, in light of the fact that the overall shape of the visible space in the instant Claim No. 1 invention and the comparable invention constitutes an internal framework to ensure that both the core body of the instant Claim No. 1 and the upper side display of the comparable invention can be maintained firmly, it is reasonable to deem that the difference in the degree to which the specific form of the elements corresponding to the inner framework for maintaining the original form is “sing shape” or “original shape” is merely a change to the extent ordinarily employed by an ordinary technician, and that the change does not cause any special difference in the operating effect.

Therefore, the core body of the instant Claim No. 1 and the display panel of comparable inventions are substantially identical to each other.

㈐ 벽체 부분에 관한 판단

In the case of paragraph (1) invention 1 of this case, “the wall” is placed at regular intervals on the outer side of the body, and is melting a large number of support bars (20) formed with the reticul (21) above and under the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the case. In this regard, the detailed description of the patented invention of this case includes “the wall of this case (2) is melting the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the Republic of Korea.”

Considering the aforementioned detailed description of the patent invention, the wall (2) in 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is deemed to be “the component that facilitates flow of salt rates by setting up the maximum common part in the open space so that a large number of supporting bars (20) formed with the iron home (21) adjoins the inner part of the body (1) with a vertical direction at regular intervals. In addition, it can be deemed to be “the component that facilitates flow of salt rates by setting up the maximum common part in the open space.”

In response, the comparable invention has started the composition of “the upper parting universal (16) and the lower parting universal (17). In this regard, in the outer part of the comparable invention 3, 4, and 6, the upper parting universal (16) and lower parting universal (17) are formed on the outer part of the upper part of the outer part of the comparable invention, and the upper parting universal (16) and the lower parting universal (17) are formed on a common part at a certain distance, and there is a city where the vertical direction is adjacent to the vertical direction. The specification of the comparable invention shows the composition “the upper parting universal (16) and the lower parting universal (17) to prevent the string of the original part by forming the tamp (25) on the entire surface of the two sides of the comparable invention.”

In light of the foregoing description and the city indicated in the specification and drawing(s) of the comparable invention, “the upper part of the Bed Invention (16) and the lower part of the Bed Invention (17)” are the shape in which the upper part of the surface (25) is formed, and the upper part (21) display (21) (22) is used in the outer part, and the upper part (21) is used in a vertical direction, and the upper part of the air space is used in the outer part. In addition, it is an element of “the smooth flow of salt by means of forming the maximum common part in the open part,” and is the composition of paragraph (1) of this case, which is substantially the same as the wall.

(2) Composition 2

이 사건 제1항 발명의 구성 2는 ‘심체(1)와 벽체(2)의 상,하 단부에 피복되어 용접되고 결합돌부(30)와 결합홈(31) 내지 결합단턱(32)을 대향위치에 형성시킨 보강테(3)(3a)’인데, 이와 관련하여 이 사건 특허발명의 상세한 설명에는 “벽체 상,하단에 보강테(3)(3a)를 피복하여 상하단의 외견을 안정되게 하며 보빈을 상하로 결합할 때 결합이 완벽하도록 하였으며 보강테(3)는 금속제로 되어서 벽체 상하단에 피복되도록 용접되거나 에폭시수지와 같은 특수한 합성수지제로 된 보강테(3a)를 피복되게 주조하여 벽체 상하단부와 심체 상하단부가 서로 이완되지 않게 하며 이를 통해 보빈 상호간의 결합이 안정될 수 있도록 만들어지는 것이 포함되는 구성이다. … 즉, 상기에서 첨부도면 도 2 내지 도 3과 같이 상측은 좁고 하측은 넓은 콘형상으로 구성하거나 첨부도면 도 4와 같이 원기둥형상으로 구성할 수 있고, 원기둥형상으로 할 때는 보빈의 상하단 규격을 같이하여 보강테 사이에 단면이 "ㅏ" 형인 적재안내구(4)를 끼워서 보빈을 길이 방향으로 포갤 수 있게 하거나 보강테의 상단부에 외측으로 단턱(32)과 돌부를 형성하고 하단부에 내측으로 단턱(31)을 만들어 서로 포개어 결합시킬 수 있게 하는 것이 포함되는 구성이다.”(갑 제3호증 중 제3쪽)라고 기재되어 있다.

Considering the above detailed description of the patent invention of this case, the reinforcement test of No. 2 of the instant Claim No. 1 can be deemed as the element of “the shape that can combine the body (1) with the body (2), the body (30), the body (31) and the combined home (32) with the combined home (31) with the body (32) with the body (32), so as to ensure stability in the external dogs of the wall and to combine the open space with each other when combining the open space.”

In response, the comparable invention has started the composition of “the upper part (14) and the lower part (20)”. In relation to the specification of the comparable invention, “the upper part of the upper part (16) is to fix a separate upper part (14) and ... The lower part of the lower part (20) is to be fixed at the lower part (17) of the lower part (17) so that it can be firmly fixed by external shock. In this case, the upper part of the lower part of the lower part (20) is fixed after being inserted into the chill (26) formed inside the lower part (14) of the upper part (14) and the upper part (17) and the upper part (14) is to be marked as “the upper part (16) and the upper part (36) of the urban area (17) and the upper part (37) of the urban area is marked as “the upper part).”

In light of the aforementioned description and the city appearing in the specification and drawing(s) of the comparable invention, “A upper part (14) and lower part (20)” of the comparable invention are fixed by covering the upper part (16) and lower part (17) on the lower part (16) of the upper part (14) and upper part (26) and lower part (2) of the parallel (16) with the upper part (16) and lower part (16). In order to ensure a stable appearance of the upper part (16) (17) and to ensure that the upper part and lower part (16) can be seen as a combination with the upper part (2) and lower part (16) of the combined invention, the combination with the upper part (2) and lower part (16) can be seen as a combination with the upper part). The combination with the upper part (2) and lower part (16) can be seen as a combination with the upper part). The combination with the upper part (16) and lower part (3) lower part (16) lower part) of the upper part) and lower part (16).

However, while the reinforcement test of the instant Claim No. 1 stated in the instant patent invention explicitly that the upper part and the lower part of the wall (1) and the lower part of the wall (2), it is different in that the upper part of the lower part of the instant patent invention is fixed only to the upper part and the lower part of the lower part of the bowling (16) in comparison with the cited invention, and that the upper part of the lower part of the instant patent invention is not specified as being used.

With regard to the above differences, ① in the specification of comparable inventions, generally, the original chromatic chroping work is mainly used to dypize the original body by inserting the source baline, the source balleine, or the source balleine of synthetic resin, which is the right to the original body inside the chroping tank, and supplying the high temperature by infiltrating the salt (the identification number 20). In the evidence No. 9, each of the components of Boble is generally used as metal or synthetic resin, it is obvious to ordinary technicians, and ② if each component of metal is fixed to each other, it is ordinarily used as metal or synthetic resin. In light of these circumstances, it is also clear to ordinary technicians. In light of these circumstances, the reinforcement of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case, which is corresponding to the reinforcement test of this case, is made into “metallic parts of the non-objected invention” and it is naturally included in the composition of comparable inventions.

Furthermore, we examine whether the composition of the reinforced metal of the instant Claim No. 1 with limited material of metal or the upper part of the comparable invention is substantially identical to each other by using “metallic materials” or “steculable synthetic resin.” The instant patent invention is a product that mainly constitutes dyphosomes of synthetic resin products, so salt charges would not be easily clean if it is used in salt color, and there was a problem that may be contaminated when using other kinds of synthetic resin as one-time development, and thus, there was a problem that lowers the competitiveness of the instant invention by reflecting the waste of materials and the price burden on the production cost of the instant invention in light of the characteristics of the instant Claim No. 3, which would be deemed as having been technically identical to the structure of the instant Claim No. 1 with “metallic materials” or the structure of the instant Claim No. 1 with the upper part of the cited Invention No. 1 with the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 with a view to resolving such problem (the second part of the evidence No. 3).

Therefore, the reinforcement test of the instant Claim No. 1 and the lower part of the comparable invention are substantially identical to each other.

(3) Results of preparation

위에서 본 바와 같이, 이 사건 제1항 발명의 각 구성과 비교대상발명의 각 대응 구성이 서로 실질적으로 동일하므로 이 사건 제1항 발명은 비교대상발명과 실질적으로 동일한 발명이다[여기에 더하여, 비교대상발명의 명세서에는, 염료의 소통을 보다 더 원활하게 할 수 있도록 ‘상하측 플레이트(21)(22) 및 상하측 지지구(15)(20)에 염액을 배출시킬 수 있는 배출홈(15)을 구비한 구성’(갑 제9호증 중 식별번호 〈35〉, 〈36〉), 염색조 내에서 다수개의 염색용 보빈을 직립으로 적층할 때에 염색용 보빈의 길이를 적절하게 조절할 수 있도록 ‘스프링(18)’, ‘상부 링 보빈(16)의 끝단에 형성된 "┍ " 꺽임부(13)’, ‘하부 링 보빈(17)에 형성된 고정구(19)’ 등의 구성 등이 더 나타나 있는바(갑 제9호증 중 식별번호 〈27〉, 〈30〉), 이러한 추가 구성의 존재는, 이 사건 제1항 발명이 확대된 선원의 지위에 있는 비교대상발명과 실질적으로 동일하다는 위 판단을 좌우할 만한 사유가 될 수 없다].

C. Determination of comparison with comparable inventions Nos. 2 and 3 of this case and comparable inventions

(1) Claim 2 of this case

The instant Claim 2 invention is a subordinate claim to the instant Claim 1, and is characterized by “the reinforcement test (3) shall be the upper part of the body (1) and the wall (2) and the lower part of the wall (2) with a certain width and the reinforcement test on the metal adjacent to the lower part.”

However, in the instant Claim No. 1 invention, the reinforcement test (3) is also covered by a certain width at the upper part, lower part, and lower part, of the body (1) and the wall (2). Thus, the material of the instant Claim No. 2 invention is naturally limited to metal. Thus, the instant Claim No. 1 invention is identical to the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

Therefore, the instant Claim 2 invention is an invention substantially identical to the comparable invention on the grounds as seen in comparison with the instant Claim 1 invention and the comparable invention.

(2) Claim 3 invention of this case

The instant Claim 3 invention is a subordinate claim of the instant Claim 1, and is characterized by “a reinforcement test (3a) consists of a bomb spherd part of the upper lower part of the instant Claim 1, which consists of a bomb spherd part.”

However, as seen in the comparison between the instant Claim No. 1 invention and the comparable invention, as seen in the judgment, ① the comparable invention begins with the upper lower part of the space (14) (14) (20) and the lower part of the lower part (17) of the outer cover (16) of the upper cover (in response to the upper cover (16) and the lower part) of the wall (26) of the instant patent invention, the upper part of the upper cover (20) and the upper part of the lower cover (20) of the instant patent invention (the combination of the instant patent invention with the 31) or combination of metal (31 or 32)) are to be formed in the upper cover, so that an empty part of the instant patent invention can be combined with the outer cover (the combination of the instant patent invention with the outer cover (16) and the outer cover) of the outer cover (the combination of the outer cover) and the outer cover (3) of the outer cover of the instant patent invention) can be combined with the outer cover of the instant invention.

Therefore, in the instant Claim 3 invention, the difference between the composition of synthetic resin, such as bomb resin, and the composition of the upper part of the comparison invention, which is limited to the "bomb resin" and the composition of the steel or synthetic resin, is merely a change to the extent ordinarily employed by ordinary technicians, and it is reasonable to deem that such change does not cause any special difference in the operational effects (Article 3 of the bombs invention of this case, particularly to the bomb resin, it is limited to the materials from the synthetic resin, but the detailed description of the instant patent invention is not because the 3rd part of the bombs invention can be seen as having been widely covered by the inner part of the outer part of the wall so that it can not be seen as having been made up of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the bombs which can be combined with the outer part of the outer part of the wall so that it can not be seen as having been made up of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the bombom.

In addition, the fact that the instant Claim No. 1 invention cited by the instant Claim No. 3 invention is substantially identical to the cited invention is as seen above. Thus, the instant Claim No. 3 invention is also the same as the cited invention.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the patented invention of this case is substantially identical to the comparable invention in the position of a seafarer expanded. Thus, prior to examining whether the inventive step is denied by prior art publicly known prior to the application, the patent registration should be invalidated pursuant to the provisions of Article 29(3) of the Patent Act. As a result, the trial decision of this case is unlawful in conclusion, and thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is accepted.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-con (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge)