The case holding that the inventive step of the registered device is recognized on the ground that the claims concerning the "high government priority for banner" in the registered device "the banner display device" do not include a countermeasure composition of the comparable device;

Article 4 (2) of the Utility Model Act

Daegu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Kang Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2007Heo4489 Decided March 26, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the record, it is difficult to interpret that the content attachment of the instant Claim No. 1 device is identical to the content attachment of the instant device, which is identical to the content attachment of the instant Claim No. 1 device, because the instant Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1 device”)’s registered device with the name “Planering device” (hereinafter “the instant Claim No. 1 device”) contains one combination of fixed attachment costs on both props. Thus, it is difficult to interpret that the fixed attachment costs of the instant Claim No. 1 device are different from those of the instant Claim No. 1 device that is identical to the content attachment of the instant device that is identical to the content attachment of the instant Claim No. 1 device, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the instant device is always identical to the fixed content attachment of the instant device that is constantly fixed within the length of the instant device that does not change the form of “a fixed device to the extent of the claim of the instant Claim No. 1,” and thus, it is always deemed that the transfer content of the instant device does not change.

Nevertheless, the lower court, on the premise that the fixed attachment of the instant Claim No. 1 constitutes a countermeasure against the comparable subject matter, denied the inventive step under Article 2, 3, and 4 of the Claim No. 1 in the instant registered device, which cited or re-cites the instant Claim No. 1 device and the claims No. 2, 3, and 4 in the instant registered device. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of the inventive step in the registered device, thereby adversely affecting

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)