[1] The meaning of "the same invention" in determining whether a comparable invention has a relation to an extended earlier application for patent invention

[2] The case holding that the patented invention concerning "indicating the route information and method of indicating the progress of the electric trains" is not only a specific technical task with the comparable invention, but also a considerable of the elements of the entire composition, and there are new effects due to the difference, and thus, the two inventions are not identical, and thus the comparable invention cannot be deemed as having a expanded earlier application with respect to the patented

[1] In an expanded earlier application, “the same invention” is recognized as not only where the technical composition is completely the same, but also where there is a difference in a part of the technical composition, but also where there is a detailed difference in the specific means for solving the task, such as addition, deletion, or modification of widely known and commonly used technologies, to the extent that there is no new effect. However, even if a part of the technical composition of the invention constitutes a simple change in the composition, such as addition, deletion, or modification of widely known and commonly used technologies, even if such change in the composition constitutes an individual change in the composition, the invention cannot be deemed the same in the event that there are circumstances such as causing new effects as it takes place on a large number of elements

[2] The case holding that the patent invention on "in the way of indicating the route information and the progress of the electric trains" is not only different from the cited inventions, but also the four compositions are different from the cited inventions, and due to the differences in composition, the patent invention shows a big difference in the accuracy of the indication of the location information of the electric trains compared with the cited inventions, and thus, the patented invention cannot be deemed as a simple change in composition in the entire invention, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an expanded earlier-application relationship.

[1] Article 29(3) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(3) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1013 decided Jun. 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1537) Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu444 decided Oct. 27, 2004

CM case (Patent Attorney Han-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jinjin Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 12, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 23, 2006 on the case No. 2005Da2490 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Patent invention of this case

The patented invention of this case is an invention concerning "the route guidance and method of displaying the progress of the electric trains" registered on October 23, 1999 after the defendant applied for on December 30, 1997, and registered on October 23, 199. The scope of the patent and the drawings are as shown in attached Table 1.

(b) Cited inventions;

(1) The comparable Invention 2 is an invention related to “a subway route display equipment indicating operation location” (Evidence No. 5, an open Utility Model Gazette disclosed by No. 92-5121, Mar. 26, 1992) and the contents and drawings of the technology are as shown in the attached Table 2. The comparable Invention 3 is an invention related to “a subway prior display equipment” (Evidence No. 6, the Utility Model Gazette published by No. 96-1097, Nov. 22, 1996, the Utility Model Gazette announced by No. 96-1097, Nov. 22, 1996, and the new submission in this lawsuit). The contents and drawings of the technology are as listed in the attached Table 3.

(2) Cited Invention 4 is an invention regarding “the reverse information device of the electric trains” (Evidence A No. 7, the disclosed Utility Model Gazette disclosed on August 19, 196 and disclosed on May 25, 1998 by the disclosure number No. 1998-1136, and there is no request for an examination within the statutory period after the publication of the application, but the invention withdrawn, or the invention so expanded does not have the status of an earlier application so that it does not have the status of an expanded earlier application). The contents and drawings of the technology are as listed in Appendix 4.

(3) On the other hand, comparable invention 1 is an invention on “the automatic broadcasting system of electric trains” (No. 4, No. 94-23889). The Defendant did not regard the comparable invention as the comparable invention during the preparatory date for pleading.

C. Request for registration invalidation trial and dismissal trial ruling

(1) On October 17, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition for registration invalidation trial against the Defendant on the ground that the comparable invention 4 is in the position of an expanded earlier application with respect to the instant patent invention, or based on the invention described in the Cited Invention 1 and 2 and the Patent Gazette No. 1999-39437 (the date of disclosure, June 5, 199) is denied with respect to the instant patent invention.

(2) On June 23, 2006, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the patented invention as of 2005Da2490, and examined it on June 23, 2006, and identified that the patented invention of this case differs from the technical composition of the comparable invention 1, 2, and thus, it is not denied newness and non-obviousness (an invention described in the Patent Gazette No. 1999-39437 is not an invention publicly known prior to the application of the patented invention of this case, and thus cannot be an invention compared to the invention of this case since it is not an invention publicly known prior to the application of the patented invention of this case). In the comparable invention 4, there is a lack of a vertical connection and automatic display judgment, and there is a lack of a change in the composition and function of the display stage and function of the patented invention of this case (in the trial decision of this case, the patented invention 4 of this case has only a function to indicate the arrival point and the next calendar, but it cannot be seen as an invention with the prior patent application of this case.

2. The issues of the instant case and the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The issues of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case, which was arranged by both parties’ claims, is ① whether the comparable invention 4 is in the position of an expanded earlier application with respect to the instant patented invention, and ② whether the nonobviousness of the instant patented invention is denied by the comparable invention 2 and 3.

B. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) As to the above (1) issue

Compared inventions 4 only did the automatic display judgment phase and the odometer scopic acid phase have not been explicitly indicated in the instant patent invention, and the remaining composition and the series of vertical connections have been practically commenced. However, the automatic display phase of the instant patent invention is merely an addition to simple well-known and tolerance technologies that are naturally inherent in comparable inventions 4, or that are ordinarily employed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field of the instant patent invention, and does not cause any new promotion by such an alteration. Moreover, the odometer 4 of the instant patent invention does not specify the odometer in the patent claim, as the method of calculating the odometer is not specified in the scope of the patent claim, it should be interpreted that the odometer is included in the mileage by using a scopher machine indicating the mileage, such as the flow speed of the electric car or the time of the instant patent invention 4.

Accordingly, the cited invention 4 is substantially identical to the patented invention of this case and thus expanded earlier application.

(2) Regarding the above (2) issue

The automatic display judgment phase and the present location setting phase of the instant patent invention are not initiated in comparable inventions 2 and 3. However, the automatic display phase is merely limited to widely known art, and the present position setting phase is merely merely printed out and indicated by simple output, and there is no particular technical significance. In addition, not only the composition from the inbound data reading phase, including the technological feature of the instant patent invention, to the point of determination of terms and conditions, is substantially identical to the corresponding composition of the instant patent invention 3. The ongoing display phase is substantially the same as that of the instant patent invention 2 by on-and-off display of display signs, etc. of comparable inventions 2.

Therefore, the patented invention of this case can easily be combined with comparable invention 2 and 3, and thus, it has no inventive step.

3. Determination as to whether the comparable invention 4 is related to the expanded earlier application of the instant patent invention

[Evidence] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

(a) Preparation for purposes;

Patent invention of this case and comparable invention 4 have the purpose of indicating the point of arrival and present location of the electric vehicle inside the electric vehicle in order to promote the convenience of passengers using the electric vehicle, as in the same manner.

However, the instant patent invention 4 is an invention for the purpose of indicating the progress and location of the electric vehicle in the previous technology, as it is an invention for the purpose of expressing the indication of the drawings 1 attached to the specification, while it is difficult for passengers to easily recognize the information display devices for persons with visual disabilities. However, compared to the invention for the purpose of providing guidance devices to indicate the current location and the direction of their arrival at or below the previous route, the instant patent invention is an invention for the purpose of expressing the direction of passage and location of the electric vehicle in the previous technology, recognizing the indication devices using luminous diode as the previous technology, and indicating the route direction and location of the electric vehicle in the previous technology, in light of the contents of the drawings 1 attached to the specification, etc., the instant patent invention is more accurate than the technical direction of the invention in the previous technology.

(b) preparation for composition and effects;

(1) If the instant patent invention does not automatically indicate its composition at the automatic display stage (20) which determines whether it will automatically indicate the point of arrival (20) in the initial stage of 20, the instant patent invention will have to indicate the current station and the next arrival station and location according to the driver’s signal input (hereinafter “Composition 2-1”), and if it is intended to automatically indicate the current station and the subsequent arrival point and location (2-2), it will have to be indicated at the 6-stage operating distance (2-stage operating distance), it will have to be indicated at the 2-stage operating distance (223), if it is indicated at the 6-stage operating distance (2-stage operating distance), it will have to be indicated at the 4-stage operating distance prior to arrival (23), it will have to be indicated at the 25-stage operating distance prior to arrival (24-stage operating distance).

(2) Among the composition of the instant patented invention, the following three inward data reading stages: 4 in composition 5 in arrival station display stages; 8 in composition 4 in comparison with comparable invention 4 in composition : “Stampling position (10, 12) is installed on the day of each route on which passengers get on and off and reduces the opening or closing of the language. The tamping position (10, 12) is crossed out while the terms are open, and the terms are closed; 20 in Mabli (20) the data information on all stations on the route is stored. Data stored in 20 in Mablibu (20) is stored in the same route as those indicated on the route, and the information is stored in 20 in the new route (20), 20 in the new route (20) space and 20 in the previous route (20), and the information is stored in the new route (20 in the previous route).”

In addition, there is no special technical significance in achieving the technical task of the invention, which indicates the location information, etc. of the previous dynamics, by itself as the cross-affiliated link between the 1 through 8 of the patented invention of this case.

(3) However, the automatic display judgment phase and 2-1 of the composition 1 of the instant patent invention, and the method of indication based on the input of signals by a human driver, are lacking in the comparable invention 4, and the composition 2-2-1 of the instant patent invention,

(A) In the initial stage of the instant patent invention, the automatic display stage, which determines whether to automatically indicate the prior-time station, the next arrival station, and the location of the process in the initial stage of the instant patent invention, and the composition that allows the current station, the next arrival station, and the location according to the driver’s signal input, if the indication is not automatically made in the automatic display determination stage (20) of the composition 2- 1 of the instant patent invention, is insufficient in each comparable invention 4.

However, it is true that the composition of the transition to the manual is widely known technology in the technical field to which the patented invention of this case belongs, and that the composition of the transition to the manual is not written in detail on the composition and action of the case where the manual of the patented invention of this case selects the manual of this case.

However, as seen earlier, the cited invention 4 is an invention whose technical task is to deal with the problem of wrong broadcasting or marking of reverse information due to the spread of information about the stations where crew members of the electric vehicle are to stop in a daily manual and the negligence or error of crew members, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the technical composition of which choice is based on necessity is naturally inherent in the comparable invention 4.

(B) Composition 2-2- of the instant patent invention: (a) in the event that it is intended to automatically display the patented invention in the early stage, the current location is indicated by entering the location of the electric vehicle into the current location; and (b) the comparable invention 4 does not explicitly state the corresponding composition.

However, it can be argued that "Control (24) operates a display (28) schedule by judging the distance and required time from the time when the electric car starts in the current station from the time when the electric car starts in the current station to the next station, and the control location (26) connected to the control section (24) is operated in the starting station of the electric train, thereby initializing the control status of the control section (24)", "Control Section (24)", and "Control Section (224) reduces the operating time from the time when the electric car starts to the point of time from the point of time to the point of time to the point of time to the point of time to the point of time to the point of time to the point of time to 28A of the display schedule (28A)" can be added to the composition of the control section (26).

However, the response structure of both inventions differs from the current location (the patented invention in this case) of the electric dynamics from the starting time (non-intersection 4). The difference between the input signal as above is that the patented invention in this case can expect the effect of maintaining the accuracy of the information because the former is generated location information corresponding to the mileage of the electric dynamics, such as Trocta. On the other hand, the comparable invention 4 can occur in the case where the electric dynamics are operated differently from the operation time at which the electric dynamics are delayed, such as the delayed arrival of the electric dynamics.

(C) The composition 6 of the instant patent invention is an annual odometer calculated on the odometer when the next point of arrival is indicated at the next point of arrival display (24). This is corresponding to the method of using the operating time required for comparable invention 4.

However, in light of the part of the claim(s) stating that “the operating state of the dynamic vehicle is indicated in the odometer at the distance from 25 to the next arrival point” and the part stating “the operating state of the destination station in accordance with the odometer,” the method of calculating the odometer in the scope of the patent claim(s) of the instant patent invention is interpreted to be in accordance with a separate external input method measuring the odometer(s) (for the same purpose, the detailed description is also identical to the detailed description of the specification, with respect to the same purpose, the external input method, such as “the current arrival point and operating location from the electric vehicle in which the stop, stop, stop, or close power or the next arrival point are cut off to the outside with the outside’s reduction time, and the number of the remaining arrival points are entered from the signal installed by the existing program(s) and “the annual acid processing method(s)” and “the distance from the odometer at the distance (25) to the point of arrival point(s) by the external input means(s).”

On the other hand, the detailed description of the specification of comparable invention 4 states, “The control section(24) is basically based on the operation requirement time, since the detailed description of the specification of comparable invention 4 states, “The control section(24) inputs data information on the station space and information on time from the new and metiology (20) concerning the condition of the opening and closing of a language entered from a bomer (18) and the information on the time from the 20th (20) and output control signals by judging the location of the electric vehicle in operation or the location of the next stop.”

Therefore, it cannot be said that the corresponding structure of both inventions is the same as one that can be evaluated as equal means even if they can be evaluated as equal means.

(D) Composition 7 is the stage of indicating the progress of the electric vehicle to the next arrival station according to the distance calculated at the odometer 25 at the odometer 25. This is corresponding to the display section (28) indicating the station following the previous bus and the location of the current operation, etc., as described in the drawing 2.

However, since the composition 7 of the patented invention of this case does not limit the method of display even after examining the entire specification, it is inevitable to interpret it as a higher concept containing the indication of comparable invention 4, the two inventions are substantially the same.

(c) Integration of preparedness results;

(1) The same invention as an invention in an expanded earlier application is not only the case where the technical composition is completely the same, but also where there is a difference in a part of the technical composition, if the difference is merely a small difference in the extent that there is no new effect due to addition, deletion, modification, etc. of widely known and commonly used technology in a specific means to solve the task, both inventions shall be deemed identical (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hu1013, Jun. 1, 2001). However, even if a part of the technical composition of the invention is an alteration of simple composition, such as addition, deletion, or modification of widely known and commonly used technology, even if the alteration of such composition is made on a large number of constituent elements of the entire composition composed of multiple constituent elements, the invention cannot be deemed identical.

(2) As seen earlier, the instant patent invention not only has a specific technical task different from the cited invention 4, but also differs from the cited invention 4, comprised of 1,2-1,2-1, 2-2, and 6 four compositions among the compositions of the instant patent invention as one of the elements of the instant patent invention, namely, the instant patent invention’s automatic display judgment phase and the method of indication based on the signal input by an artificial driver, 2-2-1, comprising the instant patent invention, cannot be readily concluded as a technology naturally scheduled in comparison with the instant patent invention 4 even if the technology for widely known and used is added.

In addition, due to the differences in the composition of the two-dimensional location setting phase and the six-person odometer setting phase, the instant patent invention causes a big difference in the accuracy of the indication of location information of the electric vehicle compared to the comparable invention 4.

Thus, the cited invention 4 cannot be deemed as a mere alteration of composition in the entire invention, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an expanded earlier application relationship as it is not recognized as identical to each other.

4. Determination as to whether the patented invention of this case is non-obviousness compared to the comparable invention 2 and 3

[Evidence] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(a) Preparation for the purpose and effect;

(1) The patented invention of this case is an invention on the "Method of Indicating the route guidance and the progress of the electric trains", and its purpose and effect are to ensure the convenience of the users by indicating the arrival station and the progress location of the electric trains within the electric frequency display machine.

On the other hand, the comparable invention 2 seeks to provide subway route display devices that automatically indicate operating location, etc., corresponding to the present operating location and the station in the subway in operation, and the comparable invention 3 aims to provide passengers using subways with electric operating equipment that displays operating conditions of electric trains installed in the subway stations or the subway stations, etc. using the display devices that indicate operating conditions of electric trains installed in the subway stations or the subway stations, etc. to allow passengers using subways to view the moving of electric trains in underground spaces, arrival time, direction, etc.

Therefore, the purpose and effect of the instant patent invention and the instant patent invention 2 and 3 are shared in that they inform the route guidance and progress of subways or electric trains. However, the instant patent invention 2 and 3 do not have the purpose and effect of indicating the present arrival station and the next arrival station, as well as the present progress at the same time in the previous section of the electric trains operated as in the instant patent invention, and thus, the instant patent invention is distinctive and new increase effect compared with the cited Invention 2 and 3.

(2) Preparation for composition

(A) Added Invention 2 is an invention related to subway route display equipment, which automatically displays operating locations by on-and-off indicating the current operational location and location in the vehicle in operation by allowing the installation of the entrance doors in subway vehicles without separate signal and electric power source cables. However, only subway route display equipment is initiated.

Accordingly, the cited invention 2 only has a composition corresponding to the 7th stage of indicating the progress of the patented invention of this case, and the remaining composition is lacking.

(B) Invention 3 is an invention related to the device that is installed within a history, such as a boarding ticket sales channel or subway station access route and is used to indicate the time and location of the electric vehicle to enable passengers who are willing to board the electric vehicle to find out whether the electric vehicle arrives or not. It is merely a structure that functions to indicate the direction-setting function to indicate the situation of the electric vehicle and a driving time display line indicating the remaining time of the electric vehicle arriving in the station, which is attached to the front and rear side of the station and is equipped with a string line measuring the passage of the electric vehicle by using a signal for measuring the passage of the electric vehicle through a string line, which reduces the arrival and arrival of the electric vehicle.

Accordingly, the cited invention 3 is an invention that does not require the remainder of the stage of indicating the progress of the patented invention in addition to the stage of indicating the progress of the patented invention.

(3) Integration of preparation results

The patented invention of this case is recognized to have the specificity and effect for the purpose compared to the cited inventions 2 and 3, and is deemed to have many constituent elements lacking in comparable inventions 2 and 3, and thus, it cannot be easily claimed even if combining comparable inventions 2 and 3. Thus, the inventive step of the patented invention of this case cannot be denied by comparable inventions 2 and 3.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the trial decision of this case as above is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Hwang Han-sik (Presiding Judge)