[1] The standard for determining inventive step in a case where the scope of the elements of an invention publicly known in the patent application is expressed numerically in numerical limitation

[2] The case holding that the nonobviousness of a patent invention claims as referred to in paragraphs (1) through (17) of the claim of a patent invention using the name "the source of high-speed low-Pressure light and operating method thereof" shall not be denied since ordinary technicians could not easily make inventions using comparable inventions

[1] In a case where a patent-registered invention expresses only the scope of the elements of the invention publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application in numerical value, if there is a difference only between the task and the extension of the publicly known invention and the existence of numerical values, the patented invention is merely a simple numerical limitation to the extent that an ordinary technician in the technical field can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments, and thus its inventive step is denied if there is no significant difference between the two effects within the limited numerical scope. However, even if there are other elements that can recognize inventive step in the patented invention, the numerical limitation in the patented invention is merely an complementary matter, or even if the numerical limitation in both inventions except the numerical limitation is the same, if the numerical limitation in the patented invention is different, as a technical means for achieving a different task from the publicly known invention, the inventive step of the patented invention is not denied on the ground that there is no critical significance in numerical limitation.

[2] The case holding that the inventive step of claims 1 of the patented invention named "the claims of the patented invention with the name "the high-speed and low-Pressure light source of the high-volatile and operating method thereof" is not denied since ordinary technicians could not easily make inventions using the comparable inventions, and its inventive step is not denied, and the inventive step of claims 2 to 17 of the patented invention claims of this case, which contain the same composition as that of the scope of the discharge current of the composition 5, is not denied

[1] Articles 29(1) and (2), and 133 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001) / [2] Articles 29(1) and (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001); Articles 42(3) and 42(4)1 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197 of Jan. 3, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da40563 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 971) Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu1299 Delivered on November 16, 2007

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on May 2, 200

C. The plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff

Patent Court Decision 2007Heo8535 Decided November 13, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal on industrial availability

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the patented invention of this case constitutes an invention with no possibility of industrial use, on the premise that the patented invention of this case is included in the scope of the patent "(patent No. 356960) on the ground that "the patent invention of this case (patent No. 356960) with the name "a scardeless light, which includes a closed air pipe, sealed steam and burner gas," and the patent application of this case states "a scarde light, which includes a closed air pipe, in which the Liber and burner gas are sealed in the marrop," and on the premise that the buffer gas is sealed in the marrop.

As long as the above determination by the court below is justified, according to the evidence No. 13, the court below's determination that the pure water that does not have any burner gas from the electric lamps was commenced even with the steam, is merely an additional judgment attached to the above judgment and it cannot affect the judgment. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is without merit without examining further.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the lack of entry

In light of the records, the circumstance that the detailed description of the specification of the patented invention of this case does not properly state the critical significance of the numerical limitation of the electric current in the numerical limitation of the electric current is separate from whether to consider it in determining the inventive step of the patented invention of this case, and it does not support the claim of this case by the detailed description of the patented invention of this case on the ground that such circumstance exists.

Therefore, it is justifiable for the court below to have determined that there cannot be any omission in description contrary to Article 42 (4) 1 of the Patent Act, since the detailed description of the invention in the specification of the patented invention in this case corresponds to the matters stated in the claim.

This part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the fulfillment of the requirement of claim.

In addition, the argument that there is a lack of entry in violation of Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197 of Jan. 3, 2007) since the detailed description of the invention in the specification of the patented invention in this case does not provide the lowest level of buffer gas pressure to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can easily implement the patented invention in this case is in violation of the detailed description, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it was first asserted in the final appeal, and it cannot be said that there was an error of omission of judgment in the lower judgment as to that part. Thus, the argument in the grounds for appeal on this issue

3. As to the ground of appeal on inventive step

A. In cases where a patent-registered invention expresses only the scope of elements of the invention publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application in numerical value, if there is a difference between the task and effect of the patent invention on the extension line of the publicly known invention and that of numerical value, the patented invention is merely a simple numerical value setting to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments, and its inventive step is denied if there is no substantial difference between the two effects within the limited numerical scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da40563, Feb. 12, 1993; 2007Hu1299, Nov. 16, 2007). However, if the numerical limitation in the patented invention is added to any other element that can recognize inventive step, and if the numerical limitation in the patented invention is not complementary, or if the numerical limitation in the patented invention is identical to the numerical limitation of values other than the numerical limitation of the invention, the inventive step is not denied.

B. In light of the above legal principles and the record, the composition 1 through 4 of the claim 1 of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 1 invention of this case", and the remaining claims are described in the same manner) was identical to the invention of "non-explosion gas emission equipment using Plorate joints" (hereinafter referred to as "non-explosion 1"; hereinafter referred to as "non-explosion invention 2"), which is published prior to the filing of the claim 1 of this case, in the original adjudication of the patent invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 1 of this case"), but the composition 500 and 118 (Evidence 7 of the Patent invention of this case, which is distributed in the same manner as the patent invention of this case, is between 1 to 5 to 1 to 0 to 0 to 0 to 1.0 to 0 to 1.0 to 0 to 25 to 20 to 20 to 20 to am current.

However, the claim 1 invention of this case is on the upper line of comparable invention 2, which states that the neons gas pressure on the comparable invention 2, related to the previous type “unauthorized discharge lamps”, includes 0.3 tor or 3.0 tor, and that if the neons gas pressure is less than 0.3 torr, it is relatively difficult to commence the discharge, and if the neons gas pressure is less than 0.3 torr, it is less than 3.0 torr, the beginning of the discharge would be less than easy or light output. In light of the difference in lamps shape, even considering the difference in lamps shape, the claim 1 invention of this case is to improve the light output by lowering the buffer gas pressure. Since the specification of the patented invention of this case does not state that there is a significant difference between the effects inside the numerical range of the limited buffer gas pressure, it is merely a simple numerical limitation that ordinary technicians can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments.

However, in the case of the discharge current, the scope of the discharge current of not less than 2 ambi or above in the invention of paragraph (1) of this case is a technical means chosen to resolve the task of reducing the co- loss of the waste dischargelessless lamps. The scope of the discharge current is not only the comparable invention 2 but also the comparable invention 2 with no start-up with respect to the scope of the discharge current, but also the comparable invention 1 with comparable invention 1.0 ambi or ebblating the discharge current by raising the discharge current from 0.25 ambl and 0 ambl. Furthermore, the claim (1) invention of this case is clearly different from the comparable invention with the numerical limitation of the discharge current. Thus, even if the critical significance of the numerical limitation in the specification of the patented invention of this case is not clearly revealed, the technical significance of the numerical limitation of the discharge current in the numerical limitation of the discharge current in the composition 5 of paragraph (1) of this case is not denied.

Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is not denied because a person with ordinary skills could not easily make an invention using comparable inventions, and thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 2 to Claim No. 17 invention is not denied. The nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 5, which is identical or substantially identical to the composition of the scope of discharge current.

C. The specification of the patented invention of this case alone is not clear whether there is an organic correlation between the discharge current of more than 5-2 am and the buffer gas pressure of less than 0.5 tor, and thus the combination itself cannot be seen as a new element sufficient to recognize inventive step. However, the judgment below is justified in its reasoning in that the invention of this case is not somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning in that the nonobviousness of the Claim 1 of this case is not denied inasmuch as the technical feature exists to combine the high discharge current with the low buffer gas pressure, deeming that there is a technical feature of combining the high discharge current of the Claim 1 of this case with the low buffer gas pressure. Therefore, the nonobviousness of the Claim 1 of this case is not denied.

This part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of numerical limitation invention, which affected the judgment.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff submitted the supplementary appeal on December 3, 2009, along with reference materials, 12 (U.S. Patent Gazette No. 4,128,785 announced on December 5, 1978) stating that “The loss of the air-conditioning current of constituent material per unit shall be governed by its speed density.” Thus, the reduction of the air-conditioning of the second flass shall be significantly reduced in its own damage.” Considering the characteristics of the part where the voltage and electricity of the ACP war can reduce its own loss, it is argued that the above provision is merely on the extension of its task and effect at the time of the original trial of the instant Claim No. 1, the scope of the discharge current of constituent material at the time of the instant appeal, and it is nothing more than that of the lower court’s rejection of new evidence in the final appeal for the reason that the Plaintiff did not submit new evidentiary materials in the final appeal for the reason that the Plaintiff did not dispute at the latest before the closing of argument in the lower court.

4. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)