logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2021.01.14 2020허1694
등록무효(특)
Text

1. Claims 1 through 1 of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision regarding the case No. 4006 per November 29, 2019

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On November 30, 2018, the Defendant is following:

The Patent Tribunal filed a petition against the Plaintiff as a patent holder of the instant patent invention as 4006 per 2018 Patent Tribunal for a trial on invalidation of the instant patent invention (hereinafter referred to as “instant petition for a trial”); and “the application number of the instant patent invention is D in the original application number, and the original application date (international) is E.

The non-obviousness is denied by the original application, which is a divisional application that deviates from the scope of the original specification or drawing(s). Each of the inventions described in paragraphs 1 and 7 of this case is not described in the specification to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily execute the invention in this case, and each of the inventions described in paragraphs 1 through 12, and 14 through 19 among the inventions in this case is not determined by the preceding inventions, and its detailed contents are omitted.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

A. The non-obviousness is denied by reason of the claim.

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff rendered a request for correction of the patent invention of this case (hereinafter “request for correction of this case”) during a trial for invalidation as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) on April 10, 2019.

3) On November 29, 2019, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal: “The instant request for correction is lawful; the instant patent invention is legitimate divided application; and the nonobviousness thereof is not denied by prior inventions.”

However, among the patented inventions of this case, each of the claims 1 and 7, and each of the inventions of paragraphs 2 through 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 17, which are subordinate inventions of this case, includes all the manufacturing methods of Hegel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel

Ro All of the above manufacturing methods, including A. B., “Spain”.

arrow