In a case where Company A filed for a registration invalidation trial against Company B by asserting that the nonobviousness of the patented invention of Company B, “the gap between the printing circuit board and the manufacturing method thereof,” was denied based on the comparable invention, etc., and during the trial, Company B corrected the patented invention, the case holding that the non-obviousness is denied on the ground that the person with ordinary skill could easily cite the patented invention from the comparable invention.

Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

Loenex Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Ho-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gaplus Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Ba-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2012Heo772 Decided February 1, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Patent Act classifys an invention into “an invention of a product”, “an invention of a method”, and “an invention of a method of manufacturing”. Thus, even if the claims are written as a whole in the case of an invention containing a manufacturing method (hereinafter “the invention of a product”), the invention constitutes “an invention of a product” in the aforementioned types of inventions, since the subject of the invention is not the manufacturing method, but the subject of the invention is the product itself finally obtained. The claims for an invention of a product must be written in a way that specifies the composition of the subject of the invention. Thus, in determining the patent requirements for an invention of a product described in the manufacturing method, the technical composition of the invention is not limited to the manufacturing method per se, but it should be compared with the prior art publicly notified and the prior art and the prior art prior art and the prior art and the prior art and the prior art and the prior art and the prior art. 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Du129715).

2. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted) of which the name “the gap between the printing circuit board and the manufacturing method thereof” was denied based on the comparison invention in the patent invalidation trial on July 18, 201, the claims filed for correction on July 18, 201 (hereinafter “instant correction Claim No. 1”) based on the patent invalidation trial on the instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted), on the grounds delineated below.

A. Of the corrective invention of the instant Claim No. 1, the composition of the premise part in the original adjudication is “a multiple strings, which open to the two sides of the plate by cutting metal boxes to prepare for a metal straw on both sides so as to expose a smoke plate, thereby exposing a smoke plate to the two sides of the plate,” and the result is “a chips installed on the PCB flag board, which is obtained by cutting off and vertically cutting the string,” and the response structure of the comparable invention is “a chips in the form of chips which can be sold to the circuit board with the head of the Dong,” and both composition are substantially the same in terms of the echips or Spanish installed on the PCB flag or circuit board.

B. Of the corrective inventions of Paragraph 1, composition 1 of the original adjudication is “the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body

C. Of the corrected invention of this case, Composition 2 of the original adjudication is “a metal string installed on both sides of the body towards each other, and the upper part of the two sides are exposed to be set up on the lower part of the two sides of the body, and is corresponding to “a metal studs installed on the lower part of the lower part of the body of the body,” which is “a metal string each other across the lower part of the body of the body.” The two components are the same in that of “a metal string or metal string installed on the lower part of the body of the body or the body of the body.” However, while the metal 2 was formed only on the lower part of the body of the body, the response structure of the comparable invention can not be deemed as having any special technical difference from the composition of a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”).

D. Composition 3 of Paragraph 1 of the instant case’s corrective invention is “a metal stay installed on the lower part of each side of the body is installed so that the bottom of the body is attached to the PCB machine board by pressing it on the PC.” It is substantially the same as “a chip-type Spanish chip-type chip-type chip chip-type chip chip chip-type chip chip chip chip chip.”

3. In addition, the premise structure of the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case includes the method of manufacturing the gap between the gap. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, which is the invention of the object, its technical composition is not limited by the manufacturing method itself, but if the structure and nature of the distribution gap, which is the final product, are specified by the manufacturing method, such structure and nature, etc. should be considered as the composition of the distribution gap.

In accordance with the manufacturing method, in the case of manufacturing the gap gap, the width of metal boxes installed in the cut plate after cutting is the same as the width of the cut board. Since the said cut board becomes the body of the gap gap, the “metallic boxes” listed in the composition 2 and 3 of the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is limited to the structure such as the body width.

Unlike the metal boxes of components 2 and 3, which are specified in light of manufacturing methods, there is no special limitation on the width in comparison with the main body. However, this is a matter that a person with ordinary skills can change appropriately as necessary in light of the gap between the gap and the Spain and the PCB flag or circuit board, and there is no special technical difficulty in deriving the above composition of the corrected invention of Claim 1 of this case from the corresponding structure of the comparable invention, and it cannot be deemed that there is a significant difference in effect.

On the other hand, even though there are characteristics, such as the difference in the gap created by the manufacturing method as the thickness is equal, it is irrelevant to the structure and nature of each of the gap itself, which is irrelevant to the structure and nature of each of the gap itself, and it cannot be viewed as a specific element of the structure, nature, etc. of the gap in the gap, which is the final product of the correction invention of paragraph (1) of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court is somewhat inappropriate in that the technical composition of the gap gap, which is specified by the manufacturing method indicated in the composition of the premise of the correction invention of Paragraph (1) of this case, was limited to the manufacturing method indicated in the composition of the correction invention of this case. However, the conclusion that the instant corrective invention of Paragraph (1) of this case was denied non-obviousness because ordinary technicians could easily make an invention from the comparable invention. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)