Hul well-dying International Sympid (Patent & Law Firm C.S. Patent & Law Firm 5 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

The Korean Island Association (Attorney Park Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 20, 2003

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 26, 2002 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2001 No. 69 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and No. 17.

A. Patent invention of this case

(1) Name; (1) the method of manufacturing polystypheride polyspheride; (2) the applicant; (3) the filing date/application number; (4) the priority claim date: January 3, 1989 (U.S.); (5) the registration date/registration number; (1) the patent No. 140230, Mar. 10, 1998;

(6) Claims.

1. The method of manufacturing 2.5dpf (den per person) of luxal ethyl ethylate Multi-Llamentate, which consists of the following stages:

(a) By enjoying a large number of voltages, polyethylene et al., a polyethylene et al. forms a mentor’s mentor’s (b) first proceed through a multi-tamper’s delayed area and then passing through a cooling area and mentor’s mentor’s mentor’s mentor’s mentor’s mentes are collected from the cooling area; (c) above is collected from the cooling area at a fixed rate of radiation (V); (a) (c) above is 0.020 or more annual mentor’s mentor’s mentor(c) is 0.80 or more of the total lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’s lamen’ lamen’s lamen’.

2. For claims 1, the manufacturing method with a feature of not less than 15 X.

3. Claim(s)

4. In regard to claims in paragraph 1, the method with a feature of not less than 13 X.

5. In Claim 5. In Claim 1, the manufacturing method with features IV consisting of 0.80-0.95 and 7.0 X or higher.

6. For claims 5, the manufacturing method with a feature of at least 11.5 X

7. In paragraph 1, the method of manufacturing that features IV above 0.85.

In claim 8. In paragraph 1, the method of manufacturing with a feature that the above diameter of the voltage (radioactive waste) is not less than 0.068 cm (0.027 cm).

9. In Claim 9. In addition, the manufacturing method, including the phase of combining the above polyethylene et al. with the characteristics of continuous heavy and direct melting operations, shall be the method of making claims.

In claim 10. In paragraph 1 or 9, the manufacturing method with the characteristics that the above polyethylene teralthalates are more heavily combined without the weight of molecular weight.

(b) a decision to revoke the Korean Intellectual Property Office and a trial decision by the Intellectual Property Tribunal;

(1) Ruling of revocation

The Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision on May 21, 2001 to revoke the registration of the invention, on the ground that the invention described in Articles 1, 1, 2, 4, and 169415 of the European Patent Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as “personally used invention”) can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the pertinent technical field, by means of an invention described in Article 169415 of the European Patent Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as “personally used invention”), which was publicly notified prior to the filing of the patent application of this case, violates the provisions of Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990).

(2) Plaintiff’s decision of revocation and appeal (Patent Tribunal No. 2001No. 69)

(A) Grounds for claim

Since the patented invention of this case differs from the cited invention, purpose, and composition and has a significant effect, it shall be revoked.

(B) Results of adjudication

On December 26, 2002, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's request for a trial.

(B) Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

The patented invention of this case is characterized by the fact that the amount of refrout of refrout of refrout of refrout of refrout of refrout of refrout of refrout of refrout of refrout, refrout of refrout of refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the refrout of the e.

Therefore, the patented invention of this case cannot be described in the specification so that a person with ordinary knowledge can easily work in the field to which the invention pertains, and thus, it violates Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act, and the patent should be revoked.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

(1) Even if there is no formula for calculating the specification of the patented invention of this case, if a person with ordinary knowledge in this field is a person with ordinary knowledge, the specification of the patented invention of this case may be calculated again by adjusting the value of D, Q, V, and IV as necessary, and since it does not require an excessive error of enforcement to a person with ordinary knowledge in this field, the specification of the patented invention of this case can be easily implemented.

(2) The reasons for the decision of the court below that the patent of the patented invention of this case is revoked based on Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act are completely different from the reasons for the examiner's decision of May 21, 2001 as to the patented invention of this case. However, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal did not notify the plaintiff of the reason for revocation of the new patent, and did not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to present his opinion. Thus, the decision of this case is unlawful in its procedure.

B. Determination

(1) Summary of the instant patent invention

In full view of the description of Gap 7's patented invention and the purport of oral argument, the patented invention of this case is for the purpose and effect of providing the manufacturing method of 2.5dpf (den flur) or of poly Em-Litter mar (Lule-Litter) more than one of them at a lower rate than that of prior art, and its technical composition is recognized under paragraph 1 (a) as one of more than 20 Litter No. 9 to 11 (Lit No. 2, No. 9 to 11); it is recognized as one of the technical composition of poly-Litter 2 to form a terter terlavethic and to form a terlavethic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic terlathic ter.

(2) Whether the specification of the instant patent invention is unclear

이 사건 특허발명의 명세서에는 이 사건 특허발명의 핵심적인 기술 구성에 관하여, 이 사건 특허발명은 (a) 용융압출 공정, (b) 고화 공정, (c) 인취 공정, (d) 고온 연신 공정으로 이루어져 있으며{ 여기에서 (a) 내지 (c) 공정은 0.020 이상의 미연신 복굴절율( )을 갖는 부분-배향된 멀티필라멘트사를 형성하는 조건 하에서 수행되고, 이며, IV는 미연신사의 고유점도로서 0.80 이상이며, 는 9.0 X 이상이다}, 그리고 위 식 중 V는 방사속도(km/min)이고, 는 Rf = · 의 식에 의해 정해지는 변수이며, 는 = 의 식으로 정해지는 변수인 한편, D는 방사노즐의 모세관 직경(인치)이고, Q는 모세관을 통과하는 중합체의 유동속도(㎤/min/capillary)라는 취지로 기재되어 있다.

Therefore, among these values, the radiation speed V and the non-fitr's inherent points in the technology field to which the invention belongs are indicated as follows: IV may be the value determined at will by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention belongs; and as the variables determined by the division, which are above 9.0 x above 9.0 x above, an excess value shall be determined within the scope of not less than 9.0 x 10.5 x value; therefore, the description in the description on the bill on the bill on the bill is written at least 10.5 x value. Thus, if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention of this case belongs has a value, he can easily choose the value of the flow speed of the body through D and the mother customs office in accordance with the relevant formula to the extent that he can have such value.

However, with respect to the specification of the patented invention of this case, the term "this wave is about the preservation of the direction after the completion of the core technology. This wave is the increase in the depth of the coolant, and the increase in the length and temperature of the core temperature and heat slives. Slives in the current field can only be regulated by this wave meter in order to maximize those who maintain excellent radioactive rays." (No. 7 evidence 6th to 11th degree) The unique point of the slive body in the implementation example is the unique temperature of the delayed area (heorb) and the detailed composition of the coolant area (the temperature, speed, flow, length of the cooling area) and operation conditions, etc. of the patented invention of this case, and it is not clearly determined by the specification and temperature of this case where the invention of this case can not be determined by the level of excessive pressure and temperature because it is not clearly stated in the detailed description and temperature of the patented invention of this case, and it is not enough to determine the level of the length and temperature of the patented invention of this case.

Therefore, the patented invention of this case is not patentable because it violates Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act.

(3) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, while the procedure for raising an objection, which served as the basis for the decision to revoke the patented invention in this case, the opponent (the intervenor joining the defendant) asserted that the patented invention in this case, on July 20, 199, was not described to the extent that it can be easily implemented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention in this case pertains, on the grounds similar to the grounds of the ruling of this case, and that the plaintiff responded to the reply (Evidence No. 3) dated August 27, 199, that the specification of the patented invention in this case can be easily implemented by employees in the art. Thus, if the opponent asserted that the grounds for revocation of the patent registration in the procedure for raising an objection, which was the basis for the decision of revocation in this case, were the same as the grounds for revocation in the ruling of this case, and the right holder has an opportunity to properly address it, the plaintiff's assertion that the ground for revocation in this case is different from that of the decision of revocation in this case, can not be accepted.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the patented invention of this case can not be described to the extent that the specification can be easily implemented by the party and thus should have been rejected under the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act. However, the registration should be revoked under the provisions of Article 74 (3) of the Patent Act. Accordingly, the decision of this case which maintained the cancellation decision of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Of Kimchi (Presiding Judge)