The case holding that the patent invention invention with the name "competing system" was publicly notified prior to the application by the same or comparable inventions, and thus, the invention did not have newness or non-obviousness, or failed to meet the specification requirements of the claim.

The case holding that, since the patent invention claims using the name "competing system" were publicly known prior to the application by the same or comparable inventions as the cited inventions, the invention did not have newness or non-obviousness, or did not meet the requirements stated in the claims.

Articles 29(1) and (2), 42(4)1, and 133(1)1 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001)

Kim Jong- overseas (Attorney Kang-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Arails et al. (Patent Attorney Song-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 3, 2005

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The decision made by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 29, 2004 by the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board on cases of 2004Da837, 1602 (Joinder), and 1725 (Consolidated) shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Patent invention of this case

(1) Name: A man-made system;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: August 26, 1996/ November 24, 2001/ No. 316791 of November 24, 2001

(3) A patentee: Plaintiffs.

(4) The scope of claims (the drawings shall be as shown in attached Form 1).

1. In the case of the electronic recording of claim 1. (1) : (2) the method of inputting user's identification number data (hereinafter referred to as "concept 2"); (3) the method of managing the user's ID data and password data (hereinafter referred to as "concept 3"); (4) the method of controlling the operation of the above meti device (hereinafter referred to as "concept 4"); (5) the method of controlling the operation of the Doi Record (hereinafter referred to as "concept 5"); (6) the central processing method of controlling the above means (hereinafter referred to as "concept 6"); and (3) the method of controlling the user's identification data and password data; and

2. In Claim 1., in addition to claims 1., an automatic warning system with a characteristic of detecting an external attack at the time of an external attack.

3. Claim 1. In addition to the method by which the device is removed from the outside by means of communication in addition to claim 1.

4. In Claim 1., in addition to time data development methods to specify the date and time of the opening and closing of a copy of a set of claims, the recording system with the characteristic of storing the record on the opening and closing of the set of records in the mergical means.

5. In Claim 1. In Claim 1., data that is used to teach a copy is stored in a device of meta in order, and that exceeds the projected data number is deleted first in the order of input data and stored in the order of a specific data and then confirmed in the order of a security officer notice at all times in the order of the data.

6. Claim 1. In Claim 1., a Doring system with a characteristic that, at the time when the user closed and did not lock up the door, the central processing measures have been controled after a certain time program, and dump the door by itself.

7. Claim 1. In the claim 1., the method of controlling the control method of a starting device by combining the ID data and password data entered by the user with ID data; the method of controlling the password data with ID data; and the 3-WY system with the characteristic of arbitrarily controlling the control method of a starting device in a voluntary method chosen by the user, among three control methods, such as the method of control by using ID data and password data together;

(b) A comparable inventions (each main drawing is as shown in the annexed Form 2).

(1) Cited Invention 1 (A No. 4)

(1) Publication date/Publication Number: October 25, 1994 / Japan Patent Gazette 6-299748

(2) Name: Cabinet.

(3) Summary of invention.

With respect to a candynet, which has a number of payments for keeping confidential documents and other articles, the CPU; a CPU; a voluntary CPU connected to the above CPU and capable of recording and reading data, such as data, such as scams, passwords, and flicks, which are connected to the above CPU; a trawer (5) equipped with an ID card page and a click for input; if the CPU is installed in response to the opening and closing of each CPU; if the CPU sent a signal as to whether the CPU opened a click data and click for input from the ID card in comparison with the ID card data, the CPU is composed of an electrical lock (6) that receives it, and if the user puts an ID card into an exclusive CP, puts into the CP card, puts into the CP card, puts into the CPU or a password, put into the CPU and a password, and then put into the CP.

Furthermore, as described in the Do 2, the CPU (5) as an implementation shall be equipped with the memory circuits, the CPU (51), the ID card server (52), the IMO card server (53), the liquid display display (54), and the CPU (51) as urbanized in the Do 1, shall be received and installed within the upper limit (3A), and the CPU (52A)’s ID card insertion (52A), the entry key (53), and the liquid display (54)’s surface shall be laid down in the Do 2.

(2) Added Invention 2 (A No. 5)

(1) Date of publication/public number: January 9, 1996, the Patent Gazette of Japan No. 8-420

(2) Title: Key control device.

(3) Summary of invention.

In the past, if ID Card is inserted in the card liber and the confidential code is entered in the operating department, the signal book contains "where both the above ID Card information and passwords coincide with those of the pre-registered one, automatically opening the door of a specific kibide room" established in the signal book. On the other hand, Cited Invention 2, together with a statement that the user enables the user to use the personal card such as general credit card, bank card, employee card, etc. as above ID card for the purpose of using it as ID card, with a statement that it is possible to read the personal card such as credit card, etc. for the purpose of using it as ID card; Tey and function (F); it is consistent with the ID code registration number (M1) and ID code (M2) registration number (O2); it is possible to process the personal card lick (R1) registration number to change the ID code into the registration code; it is possible to change the ID code's name and lick (2) registration number.

(3) Added Invention 3 (A No. 6)

(1) Date of publication/public notice number: The domestic Patent Gazette No. 1991-7176 of September 19, 191

(2) Name: A motor vehicle locker using automatic radio transmitter’s wire-signal, and a control method thereof.

(3) Summary of invention.

It is intended to operate a locking system of motor vehicles by using wireless mortars. The mortars (10) are composed of 20 square meters (11) a long-wave receiver (12), a signal transmission unit (12), a signal generation unit (13) generating unique code data set by the signal transmission signal from the body of the motor vehicle (20), and a signal generation unit (14) a signal generation unit (14) a motor vehicle by altering the code signal generation data set by the signal transmission signal to the RF signal, and the body (20) heading on the motor vehicle is composed of 20 pact (21), a signal transmission number of 20 pact (20 pact) and a signal transmission number of 20 pact (20 pact) per the prescribed program. The body (20) is composed of 14 pactling signals (20 pactling signals) a signal number of the motor vehicle (10) and a signal number of 20 pactling signals (21) pactling (20 pactling signals) per se.

(4) Added Invention 4 (A No. 7)

(1) Date of public announcement/public announcement number: May 27, 1993/Domestic Utility Model Gazette No. 1993-2981

(2) Name: A automatic locking system against motor vehicles;

(3) Summary of invention.

It is related to the automatic locking system of automobiles, which is controlled by electric voltages (RL1) authorized by the electric voltages (SW1) which control the locking system (1) input unit and the locking system (SW1), when the electric voltages authorized by the flashing system are cut off, the electric voltages (2) which control the locking system (1) when the voltages are turned out from the voltages (2) and the power voltages (2) which control the locking system (1) when the power voltages are turned out and run at the time when the prescribed voltages are turned out, and when the prescribed voltages (2) are turned out, it is commenced to set up strings (3) so that fishing can automatically lock the locking system.

(5) Cited Invention 5 (A-B)

(1) Publication Date/Publication Number: / Japan Patent Gazette 8-189239 on July 23, 1996

(2) Name: locked control device for vehicles;

(3) Summary of invention.

The CPU(20) is related to the locking system of vehicles, and the first time method of measuring the first time time after the CPU(s) close, and the second time method of measuring the second time after automatically attempting to correct the CPU(s) and the second time method of measuring the second time after automatically attempting to correct the CPU(s) is launched, and the first time time of locking automatically by the first time method(s) and the second time of locking automatically the first time of locking by automatically the first time of winding, and the second time of short heating by a simple heat rupture within the second time of opening.

C. The procedural background

(1) The Defendants filed an appeal seeking invalidation of the registration of the patented invention of this case on the grounds that each of the patented inventions of this case is not new or non-obviousness, or that the patented invention of this case constitutes lack of specification. The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board jointly deliberated on the defendants' respective claims of the above 2004Da837, 2004Da1602, and 204Da1725, and rendered a trial ruling accepting the defendants' claims on the grounds that the above claims of the patented invention of this case were based on (2) below December 29, 2004.

(2) Summary of the trial decision of this case

(A) Of the claims for the instant patent invention, the elements 1 to 6 of claims 1. (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim No. 1,” and the remainder claims are the same as the ID Card No. 1’s ID Card , keyboard, memory circuits, electrical locks control circuits, and CPU, respectively. The cited Invention No. 2 does not explicitly indicate the elements 2 of the instant Claim No. 1’s invention, but states 2 of the instant Claim No. 1’s elements as part of the previous technology, and the remainder of the instant Claim No. 1’s invention is identical to the composition of the card No. 2 of the comparable invention No. 2, the designation location of the ID code selection (S2) and the ID code Mery, and the CP No. 1’s storage.

Therefore, the instant Claim 1 invention is identical to the comparable invention 1, or can be easily described by a person who has ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field in accordance with the comparable invention 1 or the comparable invention 1 or 2.

(B) The composition of “a automatically alarming an external attack upon the occurrence of an external attack” as indicated in the instant Claim 2 invention is substantially the same as “a warning sound generating sound (26) to give a warning in accordance with the control signal of the shock (25) and the Ecompact (21)” of the comparable invention 3, since the instant Claim 2 invention is substantially the same as “a warning sound causing the warning according to the shock (25) and the control signal of the Ecompact (21). Therefore, the instant Claim 2 invention can easily be seen by the party pursuant to Cited Invention 1 and 3 or the Cited Invention 1, 2, and 3.

(C) In addition to the method by which the instant Claim 3 is applied, the composition of “in addition to the method by which the device is controlled by external means of communication” is substantially identical to “the long-wave transmission department (22), the code signal recognition register (23), and the locking device operation department (24)” of the comparable invention 3. Thus, the instant Claim 3 invention can be easily described by the party pursuant to the comparable invention 1 and 3 or the comparable invention 1, 2, and 3.

(D) The composition of the instant Claim 4 “storage the recording of the opening and closing of the recording by adding time data generating means to specify the opening date and time of the recording as well as the opening and closing date of the recording” is substantially the same as the “slick circuit containing data, such as the ID code and liquid file date,” of comparable Invention 1. As such, the instant Claim 4 invention can be easily seen by the party pursuant to the same comparable Invention 1 or comparable Invention 1 and 2.

(E) The composition of “data exceeding the program number” as indicated in paragraph 5 of the instant Claim is not supported by a detailed description of the invention, and the composition of “influence and storage of only certain data in order, while eliminating in the first input data order.” Moreover, it is extremely easy for the party to the instant Claim 5 to make an invention from comparable inventions 1 and 2.

(F) As indicated in the instant Claim No. 6 invention, the composition of “the central processing method at the time when the user closed and did not lock up the door, thereby locked the door on his own by controlling the refacing method after a certain time program” is the same as the composition consisting of static voltages (2), Rora (RL2), and tyras (3) automatically locking the automobile language when the prescribed time has elapsed, so the instant Claim No. 6 invention can be easily created by the party in accordance with Cited Invention 1, 4 or Cited Invention 1, 2, and 4.

(g) The detailed description of the patented invention of this case contains only the composition of control by using the ID data and password data, among three control methods, including the method of control using ID data and password data, which combines the ID data and password data entered by the user; the method of control using ID data; and the method of control using ID data and password data, which is ultimately not supported by the detailed description.

(h) Accordingly, Article 29(1) of the Patent Act and Article 29(2) of the Patent Act and Article 29(4)2, 3, and 6 of the instant patent Act fall under Article 42(4)1 of the instant patent Act, and Article 42(4)1 of the instant patent Act, and even if the instant 1, 4 inventions do not fall under Article 29(1) of the Patent Act, or are supported by the detailed explanation of the instant 5 inventions, the instant 1, 4, and 5 inventions fall under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act and their registration should be invalidated in accordance with Article 133(1)1 of the Patent Act.

[Certificate] Evidence Nos. 1 to 7, Eul-B No. 2

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the Claim 1 of this case

(1) The cited inventions 1 and 2, both of which form a separate control device and microphones with the wire network, and form a remote control system with a number of records on official use. However, the instant Claim 1 invention is not only different from the cited inventions 1, 2, and fundamental professional engineers of comparable inventions 1, 2, and is not a separate control device from the outside by inserting control device and microphones for each of the records. The instant Claim 1 invention has the effect of special security characteristics compared to the cited inventions 1, 2, which are likely to be exposed by the managing body of the control device or the public user or are likely to be exposed to the means for release of records by the control device, or the transmission of signals to the external network can be released.

(2) According to the comparisond Invention 1: (a) the instant Claim 1 is composed of removing a set using only a special ID card designated by the manager of the IDnet; (b) the instant Claim 1 invention is not limited to the card that can be used as the ID Card; (c) if personal information is included, such as the user’s credit card, there is a characteristic that can make an ID Card by registering information on the ID card in any way, and as such, the instant Claim 1 invention has a difference that the instant Claim 1 invention is separately equipped with “Mem control means,” which is not in comparable Invention 1, to create the ID Card.

In addition, the keyboard 1 of the comparable invention is that the manager designates a specific user and sets a password, and the user cannot directly create and register the password, while the claim 1 of this case has a difference in the management function of a camera that the user directly creates and registers the password for the purpose of cancellation.

(3) The CPU of comparable invention 1, recognizing only the special card stored in the memory circuit, performing the control function if the registered data and the input data coincide with each other. However, the central processing method (CPU) of the instant Claim 1 differs from that of: (a) the storage of user input card data; (b) the storage of the CP data in order to keep the CP data of people; (c) the CPU of comparable invention 1’s CPU has no function to arbitrarily store the CP information in the memory circuit; and (d) the CPU of comparable invention 1’s CPU has no function to store the CP information in the memory circuit; and (b) the central processing method of the instant Claim 1’s CPU has such function.

(4) In order to create an ID Card capable of opening a copy, comparable invention 2 should output the information recorded in the user’s personal card to a monitor (mark) and extract part of the information. However, in the process of registering the ID Card of this case, in the process of registering the ID Card of this case, the information contained in the ID Card of this case is entirely used, and there is no extracted or exposed personal information due to a failure to go through a separate output, so the security nature is excellent, and therefore, there is a difference between the user’s credit card and so on.

(5) As cited invention 1 and 2 are only one means of release corresponding to each recording, it cannot be identified when and when a large number of people jointly use a word, and as such, the instant Claim 1 invention can be easily identified when and when, and when, how much people have opened the word. However, as the instant Claim 1 invention is used by each individual user by registering and using the ID card, it can be easily identified when and when a large number of people jointly use the word.

B. As to the Claim 2 invention of this case

The comparable invention 3 functions only when a long-wave transmission unit is accessed within the right of transmission and reception. However, the Claim 2 invention of this case is different from that of the comparable invention 3 in terms of the computer control method that provides a warning system only when a high frequency transmission unit is calculated and a high frequency transmission unit is installed, and the comparable invention 3 does not provide a heat reduction unit, and when a shock is caused to the body of a vehicle, a warning is given by the vibration of a voltage charging station regardless of the shock size. However, Claim 2 invention of this case is equipped with a shock license and a heat reduction unit, and the temperature or impact caused by a rupture is different from that of the comparable invention 3 in terms of a computer control system that provides a warning system only when a specific temperature or strength is calculated.

C. As to the Claim 3 invention of this case

The cited invention 3 functions only when a long-wave transmission unit is accessible within the right of transmission and reception. However, the instant Claim 3 invention has a difference that does not require the composition of the long-wave transmission department, and the comparable invention 3 is an Arabic method that does not have any digital data alteration or sprinking digital data between the noses and the noses of the receiving department, whereas the instant Claim 3 invention differs from one another in that it is a digital method equipped with the above communication cap method, and the comparable invention 3 invention has a different structure in that it is a digital method equipped with the above communication cap, and the comparable invention 3 invention has to replace both the device and the receiving device because the person who acquired the device at the time of the loss of the hemcon can replace the hemba, while the instant Claim 3 invention of this case has to be changed only to digital control data, and therefore there is no difference that it is unnecessary to replace the entire system.

D. As to the instant Claim 4 invention

Invention 1 and 2 did not appear to have a composition or method capable of distinguishing when and when and when the leakage was opened or closed, but the instant Claim 4 invention is deemed to have a different operating effect from the instant Claim 1 and 2 in that the instant Claim 4 is stored in the main method of the recording by using the time data generating method and time time data, and thereby, it can specify the date and time for each user who rescinded each recording.

E. As to the Claim 5 invention of this case

The cited Invention 1 and 2 do not appear in the composition of storing the IMO data of a person who releases a recording, such as the instant Claim 5, in the order of a year. It is true that the composition of Claim 5 invention is not specifically supported by the detailed description of the invention. However, since the CPU’s domain capacity is limited, the composition that erases from the first recorded IMO information to store a certain amount of data at all times is nothing more than a professional engineer who is clear to the party. Thus, even if the content is not stated in the specification, it cannot be said that the specification is not recorded on that ground.

F. As to the Claim 6 invention of this case

The comparable invention 4 is, compared to the instant Claim 6 invention, automatically locked by using a mechanical method using a typrylate and a cryplate location, it is different from the comparable invention 4 in that the central processing method (CPU) determines the passage of a certain time set by the program and it is a computer (CPU) control method to lock a door on its own.

G. As to the instant Claim 7 invention

As long as a method (A+B) method has been initiated by combining a method (A+B) method with ID data in the detailed description of the patented invention in the instant case, the technical composition that independently uses A and B can naturally be recognized on the premise that I and B can be recognized. Thus, it cannot be said that A and B were not separately written in the detailed description.

H. The instant patent invention has already been granted a patent in the United Kingdom and the United States, and there is no reasonable ground to determine the eligibility of patent in Korea, unlike each of the above countries. Thus, it is reasonable to maintain the patent registration of the instant patent invention.

3 Sheet

(a) Original rules;

In determining the similarity and inventive step of an invention, the claims are only described in the claims, and the claims can be clearly understood, and even ifever, it is not clear that the descriptions are written in light of the detailed description, the description of the claims should be based on the description of the registered invention in order to determine the invalidation and invalidation of the registration, and it cannot be determined by the detailed description (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu496, Dec. 9, 2004, etc.).

B. Newness of the instant Claim No. 1 (Preparation for Composition with the Invention No. 1 and No. 2)

(1) Components 1

The elements 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 correspond to “IDR (52)” of comparable inventions 1 and “credit cards (R)” of comparable inventions 2, and comparable inventions 2. The aforementioned elements are the same in that each of the aforementioned elements are the means to input information that can prove the user’s identity (IDR).

The Plaintiff asserts that the cited invention 1 is composed of a set of a set of a set using only a special ID card designated by the manager of the carnet, while the instant Claim 1 invention does not limit the type of card that can be used as an ID card, and if personal information is included as such as the user’s credit card, there is a difference that can create and use the ID card by registering information on the set of a set.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 3, the detailed description of the invention in the specification of the patented invention in this case includes "a bank or slid member card that the user can prove his/her identity (ID)", or "an ID data input (1) is inserted into ID Data input (1)" among the cards such as Magic card or IC card or non-compact identification card issued at will by the user, but the claim No. 1 in this case contains no indication that the user can register his/her personal information as an ID verification method or create a unique ID card, and it cannot be viewed that "the user's ID data is a means to input ID data" and the description of the invention in this case cannot be seen as "the user's face" as a means to verify the user's personal information as well as the description of the 5 ID invention in this case. Furthermore, according to the above description No. 3, according to the concept of "the identification or identification of the user's personal information in this case."

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the means of inputting user’s ID data” of the instant Claim No. 1 is interpreted as “the means of inputting user’s ID data, such as the user’s credit card, and making it possible to use ID card by registering information on the ID card on his own, if any, or by registering it on the ID card.” As seen in the foregoing Claim No. 1. b. (2), the composition of “the users register personal information recorded on the general credit card, bank card, employee card, etc. on the ID card, so that each of the above cards can be used instead of the ID card.” As seen in the foregoing, the elements of Claim No. 1 in the instant Claim No. 2 are known as cited invention No. 1 in comparison with the cited Invention No. 2 (A. 4) but the Plaintiff’s assertion that the technical composition was initiated by extracting part of the personal information recorded on the general credit card, bank card, employee card, etc., as shown in the foregoing Claim No. 1 in comparison with the foregoing. 2.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that “if an employer includes personal information, such as his credit card, it may make and use an ID card by registering information on his own,” and the argument in the above 2.a. (2) through (5) premised on this premise is without merit, and the elements 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 was publicly announced prior to the filing of the application in accordance with Cited Invention 1 or 2.

(2) Components 2

The elements of Claim 1 invention 2 of the same case are identical to the "T" of the comparable invention 1 of the comparable invention 1 and the "T" of the comparable invention 2 of the comparable invention 1 of the "user identification number (53)". The plaintiff is a method that the manager designates a specific user and sets a password, and the user cannot directly create and register a password. On the other hand, the elements of Claim 1 invention of this case are different for the user to create and register a password for the purpose of the release of the recording. However, the invention of Claim 1 of this case only contains the "means to input the user's identification number" as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no limit to the "registration of the user's identification number by itself" and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion. In addition, according to Item 4, the plaintiff's detailed description of the comparable invention 1 of the same invention 2 of this case, the "a secret identification number assigned to each user can be used in the same way as that of the CP, and thus, it cannot be used in the same way as the CP.

After all, the plaintiff's above assertion is not just and reasonable, and the elements of the claim 1 invention of this case are publicly known prior to the application by comparable invention 1 or 2.

(3) component elements 3, 4

3 The elements of the instant Claim 1 are “user’s ID data and passwords stored by the user,” and the elements of the instant Claim 1 are “a merculation method that controls the operation of the above merculation method.” As seen in Section 1.b. (1), comparable invention 1 is equipped with “a circuit that can record and read data, such as ID data and password, connected to the CPU,” and is composed of “a CPU sent a signal on which the user’s personal information can be recorded or illegible in comparison with the data of the IDR.” As such, comparable invention 1 is naturally based on the Plaintiff’s CPU’s “a unit that can be recorded or sealed” and “a unit that can be registered with the user’s personal information, such as an automatic method that can be recorded or otherwise recorded in the CP No. 4” and “a unit that can be registered with the user’s personal information.”

Ultimately, the elements of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case are 3 and 4, as well as prior to the application by comparable invention No. 1 or 2.

(4) Components 5

The elements of Claim 1 invention 5 are identical to “electric locks control circuits that control the revised operation of the electric locks (6) of comparable inventions 1” and “a structure that controls the opening of the doors of a specific key storage box” of comparable inventions 2, and thus, prior to the application by comparable inventions 1 or 2.

(5) Components 6

6 of the instant Claim 1’s components are as follows: (a) compared with the registered ID data and passwords stored in the original circuit; (b) the ID data and passwords stored in the card book (52); and (c) the CPU (51) controling the electrical locks that correspond to the said payments by sending the prescribed signals to the electrical lock circuit; and (d) the CPU (51) controling the electrical appliances stored in the key control device (A) of the comparable Invention 2; and (c) compared with the registered ID code and secret code, if the ID code and secret code coincides with those of the registered ones, the composition of the CPU (CPU); (b) controling the storage of a particular key; and (c) controling the signal processing unit to the effect that the CP code and secret code coincides with that of the registered ones.

Therefore, the elements of the Claim No. 1 invention in this case 6 are also publicly announced prior to the application by comparable inventions 1 or 2.

(6) Judgment on the plaintiff 2. A. (1) argument

In addition, paragraph (1) invention of this case does not limit "ID certification and control functions independently for each recording." Thus, paragraph (1) invention of this case refers to not only the case where ID certification and control functions are independently performed by each recording, but also the case where ID certification and control functions are performed in an integrated manner by linking each recording with the network. In addition, according to the evidence No. 4, the detailed description of the invention of comparable invention 1 is good at the same time, "I lids by electrical locks and at the same time by using movable boxes." The above boxes are equipped with I CPU as set up in I Dolnet (5) and I Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol 2, and thus, I Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol 2 can not be independently described in the "No. 1 Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol 2," and thus, I Dol Dol Dol 2 can be independently described in the above.

(7) Conclusion

All compositions of Claim 1 invention are publicly announced prior to the application by comparable invention 1 or 2. Thus, Claim 1 invention of this case is not new compared to Claim 1 or Claim 2.

B. Whether the invention of this case No. 2 is inventive

The instant Claim 2 invention is a subordinate claim to the instant Claim 1, and is “a composition automatically alarming an external attack upon an external attack in addition to a reduction method and warning method in Paragraph 1,” which is identical to “a composition sounding a warning to an external attack (25 on the body of the body of the vehicle) by detecting the shock (25) according to the control signal of the Ecom(21),” and there is no particular difference in its operating effect.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Claim 2 invention of this case is a computer control system that provides a warning only when the he calculated the shock license and the heat reduction license and the temperature or impact of which are attached to the emerculation is above a certain temperature or strength, while the Claim 3 of this case does not require the composition of the long-wave transmission department, and the Claim 3 of this case does not provide a heat reduction terminal, and the emerculation 3 of the comparable invention of this case is a mechanical type, and if the shock is caused to the body of a vehicle due to a mechanical type, it is possible to give a warning regardless of the shock strength. However, the Claim 2 of this case is equipped with both shock license and the heat reduction terminal, and there is a difference in the temperature or impact that is attached to the emerculation.

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, the detailed description of the invention in the specification of the patented invention in this case is as follows: although it is proved that the claim of paragraph (2) of this case contains only "in the case of an external attack in addition to the word "in the case of an external attack in order to be forced to open the door, it shall be transmitted to the central control (3) the reduced data by the heat reduction method (5b), and the central control method (3) shall operate the warning method (7) such as the siren when the intensity or temperature of the program is reduced, and it shall be alerted by operating the warning method (7)." However, the claim of paragraph (2) of this case is merely stated "in the case of an external attack in addition to the word and warning method, it shall be reduced" and it is not included in the description of the patented invention in the detailed description of the invention in this case, and there is no specific description of the invention in this case and the claim of paragraph 2 of this case as stated in the plaintiff's detailed description of the invention in this case.

Therefore, the Claim 2 invention of this case can easily be made by combining comparable inventions 1 (or 2) and 3, and thus, non-obviousness is not possible.

C. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

The Claim 3 invention of this case is subordinate to the Claim 1 invention of this case, which consists of “in addition to the method in paragraph 1, control of a refactor by external means of communication in addition to the external means of communication.” This is identical to “the functional code data printed from the 10 ENC (ENC) code signal generating unit (13), which is the RF signal generating unit (14), is transmitted to the main body (20) as an owner of the motor vehicle through the RF signal generating unit (14). If the main body (20) code signal certification unit (23) is input into a DNA (DEC) after receiving this RF signal, it is identical to the composition of a motor vehicle locking device according to the Maccom (21) signal.”

The Plaintiff argues that the cited invention 3 works only for a long-wave transmission unit and access within the right of transmission and reception. However, the instant Claim 3 invention does not require the composition of the long-wave transmission department, and the comparable invention 3 argues that the difference between the international cocopier and the DNA copier of the reception department is that the instant Claim 3 invention is a digital method equipped with the telecommunication cap method.

In general, the term “magam” means a “communication device that alters an Arabic signal, such as radio waves, into a digital signal, or captures digital signal with an Arabic signal,” and its concept includes “a device that alters an Arabic signal transmitted from a computer system to a digital signal and transmits it to a CPU by converting it into a digital signal.” Ultimately, comparable invention 3 is a concept including “a device that transmits an Arabic signal signal transmitted from the antenna, etc. from a computer system to a digital signal”. Ultimately, comparable invention 3 only has the name of “a device that transmits an Arabic signal in an Arabic type with an Arabic type (10) and transmits an Arabic signal signal in the main body (20) of the locker (23) to a digital signal, without transmitting it to a digital signal through a DNA (DEC), and thus does not have the same reason as the Plaintiff’s claim that “an outer device is removed from the outer part of the claim 3” compared to the instant invention’s claim 3.

Therefore, the Claim 3 invention of this case can easily be made by combining comparable inventions 1 (or 2) and 3, and thus, non-obviousness is not possible.

D. Whether the description of the instant Claim No. 4 was not written and new

The instant Claim 4 invention is a subordinate claim to the instant Claim 1, and “to keep the record of the opening and closing of the language book in addition to time data generating means to specify the opening and closing date and time of the language book in Paragraph 1,” but there is no specific technical composition on the means of generating time data to specify the opening and closing date and time in the specification of the instant patent invention, and therefore, the instant Claim 4 invention is not supported by the detailed description of the invention.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that “the time data generation method” means a technical method that is self-known to the party at the time of the application for the instant patent invention. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no need to describe in the detailed description of the invention. According to the description No. 4, according to the description No. 4, it is recognized that the detailed description of the invention No. 1 of the cited Invention No. 1 includes “a composition that enables detection of illegal liquids by recording safs in capitalnets in the memory circuit, such as a code of a person who sets off in capitalnets, liquid safs, and liquid safs collection,” and the specification of the invention No. 4 of the instant case is also known prior to the application by the Cited Invention No. 1.

Therefore, the claim 4 invention of this case is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and it is not new since the claim 1 is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, or it is publicly known prior to the application by the comparable invention 1.

E. Whether the patent invention No. 5 of this case was not written and new

The claim 5 invention of this case is subordinate to the claim 1 invention of this case, and "the data that exceeds the number of the programed data shall be stored successively in the metari means, and the data that is in excess of the program shall be deleted in the first entry order and stored in the order of only certain data, and stored in the order of a year and confirmed in the order of a security officer's notice." The detailed description of the specification of the invention of this case does not appear in a specific technical composition that requires to delete the data in the first entry order, so the claim 5 invention of this case shall not be supported by the detailed description of the invention.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the composition of maintaining a certain domain capacity at all times by eliminating the CPU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU technical means at the time of the application of the instant patent invention, so it does not need to be stated in the detailed description of the invention. If the above composition as the Plaintiff’s assertion does not need to be stated in the detailed description of the invention, the Plaintiff’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s cU’s c.

Therefore, the claim No. 5 invention of this case is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and thus, it is not new because the claim is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, or is publicly known prior to the application in accordance with the

F. Existence of inventive step of the Claim 6 invention of this case

The instant Claim 6 invention is subordinate to the instant Claim 1 invention, and is, “as to paragraph 1, the central processing method at the time when the user closed and did not lock the door, and then locked the door by itself after a certain time program.” This corresponds to “the automatic correction method automatically diving the door from the locker control device of the vehicle in comparable invention 4 at the time when the first time expires by the first mooring method (CPU),” which corresponds to “the automatic correction method to automatically lock the door from the locker system of the vehicle in comparable invention 4.” The two inventions set a certain time by the CPU and close the door by the CPU, and if a certain time has elapsed from the date when the CPU was set by the CPU, it is identical in that the CPU’s correction method is to automatically set the door by means of the CPU.

Therefore, the Claim 6 invention of this case can easily be described by combining the cited invention 1 (or 2) and 4 with the cited invention 1 (or 4, and thus, no inventive step exists.

G. Whether the invention of this case was not written in the invention of this case and newness

The Claim 7 invention of this case is subordinate to the Claim 1 invention of this case. "The method to control the control method of a locking system by combining the IMO data and password data entered by the user in paragraph 1; the method to control it with password data; the 3-WY system with the characteristic of arbitrarily controlling the control method by the user at his own choice among the three control methods, including the method to control by using the ID data and password data; the detailed description of the invention in the specification of the patented invention of this case is "the 3-WY system with the characteristic of arbitrarily controlling the control method by using the PE data in a voluntary manner." The detailed description of the invention in the specification of this case is not the detailed description of the invention of this case, because it is confirmed first, only if it is confirmed that the user is the authorized person, it is not necessary to open a secret number and a secret number only by inputting the method to use the ID data and a secret number to fill out it into the Central Data Number 300,000,000)."

As long as A+B is initiated by combining a method (A) and a method (B) to control ID data with the ID data in the detailed description of the invention of the instant patent invention, the Plaintiff’s act of removing A from A+B method to control A or delete B with the password or to control ID data, and thus, it does not need to be recorded in the detailed description of the invention. Then, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant Claim 7 invention of this case is nothing more than publicly notified prior to the patent application of the cited invention 1 or 2, since the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is a technology to control the release of the recording by using ID data and password, as seen earlier. As such, the instant Claim 1 or 2 of this case is also a technology to control the cancellation of the recording by using ID data and password data with the ID data or password data. Accordingly, it is nothing more than that prior to the patent application of the cited invention 1 or 2.

Therefore, the claim 7 invention of this case is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and it is not new since the claim 1 is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, or it is publicly known prior to the application by the cited Invention 1 or 2.

H. Judgment on the plaintiff's other assertion

As seen above 2. H., the Plaintiff asserted that the patent registration should be maintained in Korea since the patented invention of this case was registered in the U.S. and U.K., but it is not bound by the examples of foreign countries different from the legal system and practice in determining the patent eligibility of the registered invention in Korea. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

I. Sub-committee

Pursuant to Articles 133(1)1 and 29(1)1 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001), since the invention of this case is not new, the registration of this case shall be invalidated pursuant to Articles 133(1)1 and 133(1)3(1)3 and 29(1)1 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001). Since there are no non-obviousness of the invention of this case, Articles 133(1)1 and 29(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 133(1)4, 42(4)1 of the same Act or Article 133(1)1 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001), the trial ruling of this case is justifiable, so long as the contents of the former Patent Act are not identical.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)