Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 decided May 1, 200

US Medical Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 16, 2004

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 27, 2004 on the case No. 2002Da3338 shall be revoked;

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the instant trial decision

A. The Plaintiff is the right holder of the instant patent invention with the following content.

(1) Name of the invention: Heat therapy.

(2) Registration number/registration date/application date: No. 34986/90 August 9, 2002

(3) Claims: Attached Form 1.

B. On December 28, 2002, the Defendant filed a request for a trial on invalidation of a patent on the ground that the detailed description of the patented invention of this case against the Plaintiff is not clearly and clearly indicated to the extent that the person engaged in the pertinent technical field could easily practice the patented invention, and that it is merely possible to make an invention from the comparable invention as indicated in attached Form 2. The Intellectual Property Tribunal examined it as No. 2002Da3338, Feb. 27, 2004. However, the patented invention of this case cannot be deemed as a lack of specification of the patented invention of this case, but the patented invention of this case can not be seen as a lack of specification of the patented invention of this case for the purpose of suppressing the quizzle of the upper part of the upper part of the patented invention of this case by distinguishing the support board 25 and the support board 27 with that of the upper part of the upper part of the invention of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen as having a difference between the upper part and the upper part of the patented invention of this case.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

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

The patented invention of this case is capable of movement of a small amount of force by setting up a hot flag in a romatic shape, preventing damage to the patient, and by using a double structure combining a romatic plate and a support plate, it is possible to put the hot flag into a upper half from the end of the treatment device so that it is possible to control the user's trophosome, which is different from the comparable invention.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The specification of the instant patent invention is doubtful as to whether there may be an increase in the support board in which the person is in contact with the camp in the situation where the human body takes up the support board, and the effect thereof is doubtful. ② Camp is an essential element of the instant patent invention, and does not specifically state the location, gradient, materials, composition, role, etc. of the camp even though it is an essential element of the instant patent invention, and ③ Claim 2. Claim 3 that the support board in the claim 2 and the selective contact with the camp is unclear, and thus it is not possible to obtain a patent pursuant to Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act.

(2) The instant patent invention is not patentable under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, since it can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technology field from the inventions described in the comparable invention and the evidence No. 2.

C. Determination

(1) Summary of the instant patent invention

The patented invention of this case is composed of a mplum shield in order to reduce the reflectivity generated in the course of horizontal movement of the greenhouse body to an invention with a unique characteristics of the greenhouse body used for a heat therapy, and it is possible to move the greenhouse body from the end of the treatment apparatus to the upper end in order to give a treatment effect to the hip of a lower part of the huffic body.

(2) Determination as to whether the patent invention of this case was inconsistent with the specification

㈎ 캠(38)은 이 사건 특허발명의 필수구성요소임에도 캠의 설치 위치, 경사도, 재료, 구성, 역할 등에 대하여 구체적으로 기재되어 있지 아니하다는 주장에 대하여 살피건대, 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서에는 온구기의 지지판이 캠과 접촉하면 힌지를 중심으로 회전한다고만 기재되어 있고 도면에는 부분적인 작동상태도만 도시되어 있어 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서 및 도면에는 캠에 대하여 구체적으로 기재되어 있다고 볼 수는 없으나, 수평 이동하는 지지판을 캠의 경사면을 따라 상승하도록 하는 구성은 이 사건 특허발명이 속하는 기술분야뿐만 아니라 일반적인 기계장치 분야에서 관용적인 수단에 불과한 것이어서 비록 명세서 및 도면에서 캠에 대하여 구체적으로 기재하고 있지 않다 하더라도 당해 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자라면 부분적인 작동상태를 보고도 용이하게 설치할 수 있는 것이므로 이점에 대한 피고의 주장 역시 이유 없다.

㈏ 또 지지판이 회전운동을 하고 캠에 선택적으로 접촉한다는 것은 그 기술내용이 불분명하다는 주장에 대하여 살펴보면, 지지판이 회전운동을 하는 것과 관련하여 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서에서 온구기의 지지판이 캠과 접촉하면 힌지를 중심으로 회전한다고 기재하고 있어 지지판이 캠의 경사면을 따라 승하강하는 것으로 이해 못할 바 아니고, 지지판이 캠에 선택적으로 접촉한다는 것은 받침판과 지지판 중에서 받침판보다 길게 돌출되어 있는 지지판이 캠과 접촉한다는 의미로 해석할 수 있어 그 기재내용이 불분명하다고 할 수 없으므로, 위 주장도 이유 없다.

㈐ 소결론

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the specification of the patented invention of this case is inconsistent with Article 42 (3) and (4) of the Patent Act due to lack of specification of the patented invention is without merit.

(3) Determination on the inventive step of the instant patent invention

㈎ 을제2호증을 이 사건 특허발명의 진보성 판단자료로 삼을 수 있는지 여부

Although the Defendant asserts that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied by the cited Invention No. 2 and the evidence No. 2 as indicated in the annex 2. However, since subparagraph No. 2 is disclosed on November 15, 2000, after the filing date of the instant patent invention ( May 9, 200), the document to determine the inventive step of the instant patent invention is not deemed to be a material to determine the inventive step of the instant patent invention.

㈏ 이 사건 제1항 발명의 진보성 판단

(1) Preparation for the purpose

The instant patent invention and comparable inventions are common for the purpose of medical therapy, which is to have pressure on spine while moving the devices of all the greenhouses, and to have a dynamic effect.

(2) Preparation for composition.

The paragraph 1 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "paragraph 1 of this case") shall be installed with a wheels (21) and shall be installed in the air (25) section (hereinafter referred to as the "entent 1") connected to the grass directly connected to the mother (23) by towing route (22), and shall be installed in the support board (27), which is combined with the ground (26), the support board (30), the support board (27), and the support board (32), and the support board (30), and the support board (30), and the rogate (22) and (30) of the above support board (30) to be installed in the comparable invention (hereinafter referred to as the "part 1") to be separated from the center (30) of the above.

Scope of the Corporation 1

The elements of the comparable invention, which correspond to the Claim 1 invention 1 of this case, are those of the set (10) in which the head home is formed at the center and the set (1) in accordance with the set (3) installed at the home (10) above and the set (1) of the set (1) and the set (1) are the same as the set of the two parts, which are fixed at the end to the end of the set (6) installed at the mother axis and the set up at the end of the set (7) connected to the pool (7).

Scope of the war 2

The 2nd invention of the instant Claim 1 is composed of two floors combined with a support board (27) on a bridge (25), and the part of pressure and pressure in contact with the human body is set up by a rodsing. However, the rods of comparable inventions (1) have a single floor, and the part of pressure and pressure in contact with the human body is to close (less there is no drawing sign). Thus, both composition are different.

V. V. 3 Parts

In light of the fact that the elements of Claim 1 invention 3 is a structure that installs a lamps at the center of the roser, and the drawings 1 and 2 of Claim 1 are not clearly urbanized, but the detailed description is written as “I ambling effect by the heat of the lamps installed in the rosator,” and the detailed description is written as “I ambling effect by the heat of the lamps installed in the rosator,” it is deemed that the lamps are installed at the top of the closure of the designated invention 2, and therefore both composition are the same.

(3) Preparation for operational effects.

The Claim 1 invention of this case, by forming a part in contact with the human body from a hot heat treatment apparatus, allow a greenhouse gas apparatus to move a greenhouse gas apparatus with a power that reduces the mobility force, and preventing the damage to the skin of the patient, etc., other than the cited inventions, should be recognized as significant effects that are different from the cited inventions, such as giving a digging flaps in contact with the body and preventing the damage to the skin of the patient.

④ Sub-committee

Thus, the Claim No. 1 invention of this case has a common point in comparison with the cited inventions, but there is a structural difference in comparison with the cited inventions, and there is a favorable effect due to such structural difference. Therefore, a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field cannot easily make an invention from the cited inventions.

㈐ 이 사건 제2항 및 제3항 발명의 진보성 판단

The second invention of this case is a dependent claim added to the composition of the camp in the invention of paragraph (1). The support board of the greenhouse flag in addition to the effect of the invention of paragraph (1) invention of this case has an effect of pressure on the scambling the scambling of the human body by causing an increase in the support board of the greenhouse flag in accordance with the camping slope. The third invention of paragraph (3) is a dependent claim limiting the materials of the rogr in the invention of paragraph (1) to the rooftop, so long as the inventive step of paragraph (1) invention of this case is recognized as an independent claim, the inventive step of paragraph (2) invention of this case and paragraph (3) invention of this case, which are dependent claims that limited

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the 2nd invention of this case is doubtful because it is difficult to see that there is an increase in the support board in contact with the camp in the situation where the human body takes advantage of the troupe in the troupe. However, the 2nd invention of this case is established in order to make the support board contacted with the camp from the troupe of the troupe in order to make pressure on the part of the troupe in which the troupe movement takes place from the troupe, and it cannot be deemed that the human body takes advantage of the troupe when the troupe takes advantage of the troupe, so the support board can increase up to a certain height depending on the slope of the camp ( even if the Gagle is taking advantage of the support board, it is not problematic that the roupe's pressure on the troupe's troupe's troupe's troupe's troupe's troup.)

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the patented invention of this case is non-obviousness compared with the comparable invention, and the decision of this case, which has different conclusions, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)