Where “A” corporation filed for a patent invalidation trial against “B” corporation on the ground that the claim 1 of the above patent invention becomes null and void, the case holding that the nonobviousness of the above claim 1 invention is denied on the ground that the ordinary technician can easily make an invention from the cited invention.

Articles 29(2) and 42(2) of the Patent Act

Pussurn Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Sang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

U.S. Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 201Heo7386 decided February 8, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Inasmuch as the patent applicant intends to be protected as a patented invention, the confirmation of the invention subject to a new and advanced determination shall be based on the matters set forth in the patent application, and it is not allowed to limit or expand the patent application by any other description, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention. However, the matters described in the patent application can be accurately understood by considering the detailed description or drawings of the invention. Thus, the matters described in the patent application shall be based on the general meaning of the text and shall be objectively and rationally interpreted after considering the technical significance of the invention to be expressed by the text, taking into account the detailed description, drawings, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3625, Oct. 25, 2007, etc.).

In light of the records, the claim(1) of the patented invention of this case (patent number No. 34023) (hereinafter “instant claim(1) invention”) with the name “in the light of the records,” does not clearly determine the “whether the GFRC artificial rock is first installed in the steel structure” before the construction of the “Intermediate reinforced reinforced material” or “Intermediate reinforced material” (hereinafter “Intermediate reinforced material”) with the words written in the above claim(s). In light of the records, the claim(s) of this case’s patent invention(patent number No. 34023), “this case’s claim(s) shall be installed at a certain height to install an artificial breadth installed for landscaping, etc., and if it is installed in the length direction consistent with the size of the artificial breadth, it shall be interpreted that it is reasonable to establish the existing shape of the GFR’s artificial reinforced structure(s) to meet the standard form(s) and shape(s) of the GFR’s artificial reinforced structure(s) at a fixed structure(224).

On the premise of the foregoing determination, in comparison with the instant Claim No. 1 and the comparable invention as indicated in the lower judgment, both inventions are difficult to use the retaining wall “the basic body” (the same shall apply to the invention that is not an object of comparison)” and “the steel structure” (the same shall apply to the reinforcement of non-intersections) supported by poppy, etc. with the retaining wall, and “the network of merculations” (the same shall apply to non-intersections) installed on the absence of extension of steel structure (the same shall apply to intersections). However, it is difficult to find that there is no further difference between the inner structure of the instant Claim No. 1 and the inner structure of the steel structure that provides GFRC artificial cancer at the end of the steel structure (the same shall apply to the artificial structure of the instant invention) and the artificial tar reinforced steel structure, which is not known to the effect of removing the inner structure of the instant Claim No. 1 from the inner structure of the steel structure (the same shall apply to the artificial tar structure of the instant invention).

Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied because a person with ordinary skills can easily make an invention from the comparable invention. The lower court partly erred in its conclusion that the instant Claim No. 1 invention “First of all, the lower court installed the GFRC’s artificial rock and installed the network of the shape at the time on the front side, and installed the network of the shape at the time and installed the interim reinforcement, and interpreted it as a construction method to remove concrete in the space.” However, the lower court is justifiable in its conclusion that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step, or in the incomplete hearing, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)