(a) The scope of the right to a utility model right, including the method of determining the similarity of devices and the reason for public notice;

(b) The case holding that the device (a) does not fall under the scope of the right in the registered petition, as to a device attached to the outer wall of the building, to the cover of the cover for transporting building materials;

A. In determining whether a device is identical or similar to the scope of a utility model on which the device is registered, the scope of the right should be compared and examined by comprehensively taking into account not only the technical device related to the type, structure, or combination of each product, but also the utility model, such as the use value and purpose of use, as well as the technical device related to the product's punishment. In addition, even if the utility model registration includes the reason for public notice, the utility model right can not be extended to the publicly known ground that is granted only to new professional engineers and that is not systematically combined with new technical effects.

(b) The case holding that, in comparison with the registered device and the (a) device, the (a) device is not included in the scope of the right in the registered device, since the effects of each component and technical means are different in the remaining parts except for the publicly notified professional engineers, if the (a) device is different from the registered device with respect to the device that drums for transporting building materials are attached to the outer wall of the building.

Articles 4, 29, and 35 of the Utility Model Act; Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2416 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1990,529) 89Hu179 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990,529) 89Hu2045 delivered on October 26, 1990 (Gong190,2423) 90Hu823 delivered on March 12, 191 (Gong184)

claimant

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 1990.16 Oct. 16, 1990, 90Ra 334

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In determining whether a device is identical with or similar to the scope of a registered utility model, the scope of the right should be compared and examined by comprehensively considering not only the technical device related to the type, structure, or combination of each product, but also the utility model, such as the use value and the purpose of the use, as well as the technical device related to the punishment for the product such as the type, structure, or combination of the product. In addition, even if the utility model registration includes the reason for public notice in the registration of a utility model, the utility model right can not be extended until the reason for public notice that is granted only to a new professional engineer and that is not systematically combined with new technical effects (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when both this registered device and (a) are installed on the side of the studs for transporting building materials, the basic professional engineer shop is similar to each other in that the studs for assembly of the studs are installed on the outer walls of the building. However, if we look at the remaining parts of the device except this part, the studs of the studs are installed on the studs of the studs of the studs of the studs of the building and the studs of the studs of the studs of the studs of the studs of the building, the studs of the studs of the studs of the studs of the studs of the building, and the studs of the studs of the studs of the studs of the studs of the building, and the studs of the studs of the studs of the building.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)