Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee U.S. Patent & Patent Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 28, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The part concerning claims 5, 6, 10 through 13, and 15 of the Patent Tribunal's decision on September 22, 2006, which was rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2005Ra60 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. Registered invention of this case

(i)Name of invention: Communication control method between the equipment on the network, and the device for such control;

Sheet Filing date/registration date/registration number: September 19, 2003/ May 12, 2004/432675

【Patent Claim】

Claim 5: In a method of controlling communication between the equipment on a specific network (hereinafter referred to as “colation”), a network radice (MAC) in which a communications control device exists within a network, and a data link raddice (MAC) in collecting (hereinafter referred to as “condication 5-1”), a network manager’s storage of telecommunications control handling handling installed to control the collected radice’s desired communication in DB (hereinafter referred to as “condication 5-2”), a network operator’s equipment in a network shall be equipped with a network radic determination method (hereinafter referred to as “condication 5-3”) and a network 5-P equipment for detecting a network radication (hereinafter referred to as “condication 5-5”) and a network 5-P equipment for detecting a communication network (hereinafter referred to as “condication 5-5”).

In Claim 6: In paragraph 5 above, the above process of collecting the ARPP straw in order to communicate with other equipment in the network is that the communication control device received and then detects the ARP straw and/or a method of detecting the ARP straw (hereinafter “former 6-1”) and/or a/or the network manager’s direct input of the equipment subject to management, in accordance with the RP request straw, the communication control device sent the ARP request straw from the ARP response box in which the equipment subject to management was sent and in response, it follows the method of detecting the ARP request straw and data link from the ARP response box in which the equipment subject to management was sent (hereinafter “former 6-2”) (hereinafter “instant Claim 6”).

Claim 10 : In paragraph 5, in the case where a transmission signal is to be cut off, a communication control method (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 10 invention”) characterized by the transmission of ‘all’ protocol-data links to the same network as the transmission protocol.

Claim 11: In paragraph 5, if the equipment in the network is sent in response to the ARP request sheet sent by the communications control equipment, the method of communication control (hereinafter referred to as “concept 11-1”) that is characterized by adding to the transmission phase of all protocol-data links-data links (hereinafter referred to as “concept 11-2”) that belong to the same network as the transmission phase, if there is a rule to block the transmission phase as a result of the search, it is possible to search the equipment in the network using the transmission margin contained in the ARP response sheet (hereinafter referred to as “concept 11-1”) (hereinafter referred to as “concept 10”)

Claim 12: In paragraph 5, the method of communication control, which is characterized by making up and transmitting a ARPet to cancel the condition of communication blocking with respect to the equipment that is still in the condition of communication blocking even though it is no longer subject to communication blocking depending on network radar detection (hereinafter “instant Claim 12 invention”).

Claim 13: In accordance with paragraph 5 or 12, a communication control method with a feature of more than a stage of transmitting a ARP request for the cancellation of communication blocking/communication in accordance with the database for communication control at a certain time (hereinafter “instant Claim 13 invention”).

Claim 15: In paragraph 5, in the event there is a conflict between the IP preferences of equipment newly connected to the network compared with the IP preferences of existing equipment, a communication control method with the characteristics of transmitting the correct IP preferences to the existing equipment with the source of resolving the conflict of IP preferences (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 15”).

Applicant drawing: as shown in attached Form 1.

(b) Invention;

The Defendant’s computer program, which is a computer program supplied to demand institutions, etc. from around January 2003, is a product that was inspected on May 13, 2003 after being supplied and installed to the ○○ Military Office on May 21, 2003. The cans consists of a computer program, which is composed of a server and a probbb program, which provides support to manage all IP addresses and MAC addresses in the network and provides information to the manager when there is a conflict between IP addresses. The server server of the comparable invention is 2.19, and the program server of the comparable invention is 2.2.24.2.2. The detailed functions of the comparable invention appear as a result of the verification of CD submitted by the ○○ Military Office on November 28, 2007.

The plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to understand that the server servers of the ice can be supplied to the ○○○○ Military Office late than the viewing of △△, which are lower than the server servers of the ice cans supplied to △△△, and that the ice cans supplied to ○○ Military Office is the same as the server server servers (2.2.19) and the ice cans supplied to ○○ Military Office, which are the core programs of two inventions, and that the final date of revision of the servers are the same as the market length, so the products supplied to the same △△△△△△△△, but the product supplied to the △△△△△△△△△ is supported with group automatic production function, and the defendant's improper delivery of the CD can only be substituted by the CDs that were supplied to the ○○ Military Office, but the defendant did not have any possibility of forging the CDs with the original contents of the CDs provided to ○○○○ group, and the defendant's improper delivery of the CDs.

However, in the process of developing the program, it is difficult for the program developer to exclude the possibility that the program developer erroneously created the program, and the date and time of producing the already produced program is indicated as the modification date, rather than the date and time of the modification of the already-produced program, so the correction date and time of the program is the same as the beginning date of the installation, and it does not have to be identical to the contents of the program. According to the results of the fact-finding on the pregnant head of this court, the ○○○ Military Office cannot be deemed to have poorly managed the program and products, such as designating a person in charge of computer and creating and managing an outside person’s visit register with access to the computer room, and even later, if the content of the program is verified by the contents of the program installed and operated in the ○○ Military Office, it is difficult to readily conclude that the content of the program was forged or falsified by the Defendant’s submission of the program, in light of the fact that it could not easily be proven that the CD was forged or falsified by the Plaintiff’s submission of the program.

C. Circumstances leading up to the instant trial decision

On January 13, 2005, the Defendant filed for a registration invalidation trial against the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the right to registration, on the ground that the registered invention in this case, can easily be seen from the comparable inventions at the time of the trial by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”), and thus, the Defendant filed for a registration invalidation trial with the Intellectual

After examining it as No. 2005 Party 60, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling of this case citing part of the defendant's appeal on the ground that the invention was no inventive step compared to the comparable inventions at the time of the trial (it is an Als cans canss cans supplied by the plaintiff to △△△△).

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 5 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. The issues of the instant case

The nonobviousness of the instant Claims 5, 6, 10, 13, and 15 is denied based on comparable inventions.

B. Whether the invention under paragraph (5) of this case is inventive

(i)Preparation of Technology and Purposes

The instant registered invention and comparable inventions are designed to control communications between network equipment, and are identical or similar to the technical field.

Shebund Composition and Effect Preparation

㈎ 전제부 및 구성 5-6

References and 5-6 provide that “The method of controling communications among equipment on a specific network may be selectively controlled depending on the need for communications among equipment on a network.” Invention also controls communications among equipment through control, such as IP address of equipment (PC 1, PC2, etc.) connected to a network by using IP address of equipment (PC 1, PC2, etc.) and network connection of specific equipment not permitted by using the MAC address, etc. (see evidence 8 of subparagraph 8 of this Article, both are the composition and effect of which are substantially identical.

㈏ 구성 5-1

The composition 5-1 is "the stage at which a communications control device collects a network radar that exists in the network and a data link radar," which is corresponding to "No. 8, No. 4, (see, e.g., No. 1-3) of the comparable invention by transmitting ARP re-surveyst (see, e.g., No. 8, No. 4), and "to collect an IP address and MAC address (see, e.g., No. 8, No. 5) by being obtained from computers connected to the network". The composition and effect of the two are the same.

㈐ 구성 5-2

Composition 5-2 is the stage of storing communications control set up to DB to control communications that the network manager wants to control the collected servers. This is the same as the composition and effect of the comparable invention “(IP address: 168.10.100, 192.100, 192.10.10, MAC address: 00: 0: 00: 91:0:0: 00:0: 00: 00: 00: 0: 00: 0: 00: 0: 02: 0: 0: 0: 04) of the server that handles 1 (IP address: 1-6).”

㈑ 구성 5-3

In the composition of 5-3, “the transmission of any equipment within the network to communicate with other equipment inside the network” is identical with the composition and function of “the ARP motor vehicle using the PC 2 (IP address: 00 e0 e0 :91:0 :02:04) to communicate with the PC2 (IP address: 168.10.10.10 :01) to communicate with the PC2 (MA address: 192.168.10.10 : 1).” Of 5-3, “the detection of any equipment within the network” is identical with the composition and function of “the ARP motor vehicle 8 (c. 1-7)” (see No. 8. 1. 1) and “the ARP protocol (ARP) detection” in the composition of 5-3, and thus, it is easy to detect the ARPP motor vehicle :ff address from the comparable invention to be easily discovered by the APP motor vehicle.

㈒ 구성 5-4

Composition 5-4 is a stage to determine whether a ARP base detected by making inquiries into a telecommunications control database is subject to the blocking of communications. It is naturally premised on the premise that it is to determine whether a producer of the comparable invention constitutes the subject of the blocking of ARP base (IP address: 168.10.10, 192.108.100, MAC address: 00: 00: 00: 00: 00: 0:0 :02: 00:0 :0: 02: 04) of the comparable Invention in response to the composition of ARP base (hereinafter referred to as “establishment technology to block this.” No. 8 No. 7 [Attachment 1-6]. As such, it can be derived from the comparison invention that makes it easier for the composition of ARPB to determine whether the ARP base detected by making inquiries into the server DB (conform database 5-4) in the comparable invention.

㈓ 구성 5-5

Composition 5-5 is a stage of manufacturing and transmitting a ARP-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-S-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-8: : (a) is that the PP-8(s) of comparable inventions (MA address:168.100.10.10:00) is changed to the MA address of the PP-7:00) as if the PP-P-P-P-P-P44(s) is changed to the network; (b)

【Reference Results

The registered invention of this case and the comparable invention are identical and similar to the technical field and purpose, and each composition of the Claim No. 5 invention of this case is identical with the comparable invention, or can easily be derived from the corresponding composition of the comparable invention by a person with ordinary skill, and its effect is not significant compared to the comparable invention, and thus the nonobviousness of Claim No. 5 invention of this case is denied

C. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

Composition 6-1 "The process of the above network collection is "the method of detecting a network rack and data link racking from a network rack in which the above communication control device was received to communicate with other equipment inside the network". This is "the method of detecting a network rack and data link rack" of comparable Invention 1 (MAC address: 00: 00 e0 : 91:0 ob:04) as seen in the above 5-3, as seen in the above Composition 5-3, PC 2 (IP address: 168.10.10.101) of comparable Invention : ARP locking from the above PC to communicate with PC 2 (MAC address: 192.10.10.10.101). As such, it is easy to detect the APP locket or to detect the same equipment as the APP lock in comparison with the AP : 1.

-2 Composition 6-2 : “The communications control device transmits ARP request c. based on the list of equipment directly input by the network manager, and in response thereto follows the method of detecting the network c.r., data link from ARP response c.r., where the equipment subject to management is sent,” which is “the method of detecting the network c.r., and data link from the network c.r.,” which is “the method of directly installing the equipment subject to management by the user through the oil reservoir (see subparagraph 8-6 c. 1-6 c.)” and “B(MA address:00:0:86:57: c. 7)” and “the PC address (MAC address: 0: 0: 0: 10: 0: 0: c. 40: c. : 00 c. : : 00 c. : 010 c. : 10: 00 c. 4: c. : : 01010 c. c. c. : : 4: : : : 40100. PC. . . . . . . : . . : : : 4. . . . . . : . . : : . : . : . : : . : . : . : . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

However, Composition 6-2 stated only "the method of transmitting (compact) the equipment (compact) based on the list of equipment subject to management directly input by the network manager and detecting (compact)." Thus, unless it is clearly distinguishable from whether 6-2 restricts transmission or limits detection, Composition 6-2 cannot be deemed to specify the click, it cannot be deemed to specify the click, and 6-2 of blicks do not exclude the method of comparable inventions transmitting ARP request clocks by the blicks.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the Claim 6 invention of this case is denied by the comparable invention.

D. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 10 invention is inventive

In the instant Claim 10 invention, “In the case of the instant Claim 5 invention, the sender’s license is cut off and sent to all ‘proctop-data links’ which belong to the same network as the transmitting side protocol in the case of the blocking of the transmission side screen,” and the transmission side license is denied in accordance with the instant Claim 5-3 invention citing the instant Claim 10 invention from the 5-3 composition of the instant Claim 5-3 to communicate with other equipment in the network, the license of the comparable invention, corresponding thereto, is the address of the PC 1’s IP, and the instant Claim 10 invention can be easily derived from the “inc toptop stropsn technology” of the comparable invention corresponding to 5-5 comparable inventions. Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 10 invention is denied in accordance with the instant Claim 10.

E. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

Of the instant Claim No. 11, 11-1, a component of the instant Claim No. 11 is as follows: “Search for management handling using a transmission watch contained in the ARP request box, in response to the ARP request box sent by the telecommunications control equipment,” except for the “management handling handling search” in Section 11-1, which is the same as “a technology in which the control device detects the address of the device inside the network” of the comparable invention corresponding to the composition 6-2, and “Search for management handling” in Section 11-1, which can be easily derived from the “discovering construction technology” of the comparable invention corresponding to the composition 5-4 of the person with ordinary skills.

Of the instant Claim No. 11-2, Composition 11-2, “If there is a blocking rule on the transmission side of the transmission side as a result of the search, it would be easy for an ordinarily skilled person to easily derive from “the ARP Brk’s Brops technology” corresponding to the composition 5-5, “if there is a blocking rule on the transmission side of the transmission side, it would be the stage of transmitting all protop-data link displayers (DB-3) belonging to the same network as the transmission side protocol.”

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 11 invention of this case is denied by comparable inventions.

F. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

The instant Claim 12 is “a stage to create and transmit ARP-P-P-P-P-P-P-cacker to cancel the communication condition of equipment that is still being used to be used to be used to be used to be used to be used to be used to be used to be used to be used to be used to block the communication,” which constitutes “AR-8:0:00:56:6:67a:c7) in comparable inventions, the MA address of PP-1 (IP address: 168:10.100.10: 168.100) is 0:5:91:0 :02:04, which is the original accurate address of PP-P-packer-cacker, and the network is brol-cked to be used to make another computer on the network know the PC address of PC 1 (see, e.g., No. 11-10/100).”

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 12 invention of this case is denied by comparable inventions.

G. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

The Claim 13 invention of this case is "the stage of transmitting ARP request Sheet in order to cancel communication blocking/communication in accordance with the base of communication control at a certain time." This is "The ARPet No. 27 pages 8, No. 27 [Attachment 5-4] of PC 1 (see Evidence 8, No. 27-4] after ascertaining the MAC address of PC (see, e.g. 5-4) for the purpose of blocking PC 1 (IP address: 00: 0: 0: 10.10: 10: 10: 168: 44444: 50: 40: 402: 402: 402: 502: 402: 450.100) of the comparable Invention and the address of the MAP request is identical or easily derived from the PPet No. 250.440:402.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 13 invention of this case is denied by comparable inventions.

H. Whether the invention under paragraph (15) of this case is inventive step

The Claim 15 invention of this case is "where there is a conflict between the IP base of the equipment newly connected to the network and the existing IP base of the existing equipment, the proper IP base is transferred to the existing equipment to resolve the conflict between the IP base and the existing equipment." This is "If the IP base of the PC 1 is changed to October 101, 192.168.10:0:0:86:57:c. 7) to the existing equipment address of the PC 2nd PC : 3:00,000,000:0:0:0:0:57:0:37,000:0: 10:0:10:0.10:0.10.10.10.10:0.10.10.10.10.10.16.10.10, 1992.

However, the method of the instant Claim No. 15 invention is a hybrid, and the comparable invention is a brogner, but there is a difference in the comparable invention, such difference is a matter that can be easily selected by a person with ordinary skills, as long as the operating effect is the same in that the correct IP address is delivered to other equipment. Therefore, there is no complexity and effect of composition.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 15 invention of this case is denied by comparable inventions.

I. Sub-committee

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant inventions Nos. 5, 6, 10, 13, and 15 is denied by means of comparable inventions, and the instant trial decision, which had the same conclusion, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) Cho Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)