[1] The case where comparable inventions can be used as prior art to deny the inventive step of the patented invention by comparing the technical field

[2] The case holding that the patented invention whose name is "a Myanmar supply device" can be easily derived from the comparable inventions with regard to "a means of cutting off satiss" by a person with ordinary skills

[1] In Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, “the technical field to which the invention pertains” refers to the industrial sector to which the patented invention in question pertains, and where the industrial sector to which the patented invention in question pertains is different from the one to which the patented invention in question pertains, even if it is difficult to use the cited invention as a prior art to deny the inventive step of the patented invention in question, if the technical composition of the cited invention in question is not applicable only to a specific industrial sector, but can be used without any difficulties to solve the problem of the appropriate technical problem of the patented invention in question, it may be deemed as the prior art denying the inventive step of the patented invention in question.

[2] The case holding that the patented invention whose name is "a Myanmar supply device" can be easily derived from the comparable inventions with regard to "a means of cutting off satiss" by a person with ordinary skills

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Shin Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Mbeni (Law Firm Central, Attorneys Lee Do-o et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo9039 Decided June 22, 2006

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

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

In principle, “the technical field to which the invention pertains” under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act refers to the industrial sector to which the patented invention in question pertains. If the industrial sector that has used the patented invention in question is different from that of the comparable invention, even if it is difficult to use the cited invention as prior art that denies the inventive step of the patented invention in question, if the technical composition of the cited invention in question is not applicable only to a specific industrial sector, but can be used by a person who has ordinary skill in the industrial sector of the patented invention in question (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) without any difficulties to solve the problem of the appropriate technical problem of the patented invention, it may be deemed as prior art that denies the inventive step of the patented

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the scope of patent claim (Patent No. 218069) of the patented invention of this case (Patent No. 218069) with the name “a device for the Myanmar supply” (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) 1 elements of the original adjudication at the time of the original adjudication correspond to the composition with walls putting the inner room above the press, including “tamp (10), vertical guidance board (32), frap (31), and frap (31) installed on the press at the time of the original adjudication.” According to the drawing No. 2 of the comparable Invention 1, the parts of the invention are more than the end portion and are more than the part of the main body, and it is a combination of 13,14) with the outer wall structure fixed by both sides of the main body and the outer wall structure of the original adjudication, so that it can not be combined with the outer wall’s outer structure or the outer wall’s outer wall.

In addition, even though there is no explicit indication in the comparable invention 1 on the technical composition that falls under the 4 set of the elements of the original adjudication, it is apparent that a string unit should be formed so that rollers (13,14) can be loaded on the side wall of presses (10) in order to combine it with the side wall of presses (10), so this also can be easily derived from the comparable invention 1.

Of the elements 8 of the original adjudication, the term “flexibly composed of at least one beer part of the surface in the field of technology using one or more beering of the parts 1 and 2” does not have a specific definition with respect to the term “flexible” in the specification of the patented invention of this case. However, the term “flexibation” has only a description that the beer, which includes the beer part, consists of “sitr part” as “sitr part.” In light of the fact that the composition of the beer-related technology belonging to the comparable invention 4, which is ordinarily used in the field of technology using the devices that support the entire part, such as roller, can be easily derived from comparable inventions 4 in the field of textile machinery, such as the beer supply device.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case was not denied on the premise that the elements 1 and 4 of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case were not initiated in the comparable invention No. 1, and that the flexible composition of the component 8’s beering trial surface is not initiated in the comparable invention No. 4. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to inventive step of the patented invention and the incomplete hearing as to the composition of the comparable invention No. 1 invention, and the plaintiff’

Therefore, the judgment 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 Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)