The case holding that the new invention falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention since it is merely an addition to a harmful process if the core part of the patented invention and the technical composition are identical and the effects of the new invention have decreased due to a change in a part

The case holding that the new invention falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention since it is nothing more than the addition of a hazardous process if the core part of the patented invention and the technical composition are identical and the effects of the new invention have decreased due to a change in some

Article 97 (1) 2 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 13, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1509 delivered on March 23, 1993

claimant

Patent Attorney Nowon-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 91Hu936 delivered on April 14, 1992

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Na101 dated August 22, 1992

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below after remanding the case, the court below: (a) the technical summary of the patented invention of this case is to form a surface abutting on the front side of the glass board for efficient painting within a short time; (b) establish multiple trials on the same day at intervals of time through a lot of holess in the public trial; and (c) open the surface at intervals of time; and (d) open the unsealed surface with an unsealed surface at intervals of time; and (d) seal it is to be sealed and sealed again with an unsealed surface; and (e) the technical summary of the patented invention of this case is to be the core part of the patented invention of this case, which is to be connected to the front side of the glass board, are to be determined by the method of contact with the patented invention of this case, which is to be connected to the outer upper part of the patented invention of this case; and (e) have a difference between the outer upper part and the outer upper part of the patented invention of this case, which is to be combined with the outer upper part of the patented invention of this case.

However, according to the records and facts established by the court below, the patented invention of this case is identical to the main part of the technical composition of the patented invention of this case which is identical to the patented invention of this case, and because it is difficult to carry the previous without any hole by means of painting or painting, and it is its key feature to solve the inconvenience that is to be stored in the seal amount by placing it in secret. Thus, the technical core of the patented invention of this case is to form a parallel with the flat and to seal it at the same place. Thus, since the technical composition of the patented invention of this case is not the same as that of the patented invention of this case, it can be seen that (a) the technical effect of the patented invention of this case is only the same as that of the patented invention of this case, and (b) the technical effect of the patented invention of this case is not different from that of the patented invention of this case, and (a) the technical effect of which is identical to that of the patented invention of this case can not be seen to be identical to that of the patented invention of this case, and thus, (a) the technical effect of the patented invention of this case can be different from that of this case.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the case after remanding the original trial decision to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)