J.S. Co., Ltd. (Attorneys O Chang-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Epati Asia, LTD (Attorneys Han Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 10, 2014

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 6, 2013 on the case No. 2012DaDa2848 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The patented invention of this case (A)

(i) The title of the invention: Dice pent in which the heat preserving statement is provided;

2) Date of application (date of priority filing)/registration date/registration number: May 9, 2008 ( May 10, 2007)/ December 29, 2011 omitted.

3) A patentee: The defendant;

4) Claims and major drawings: as shown in Appendix 1.

(b) Note 1) Consumed inventions

1) Cited Invention 1 (A No. 14)

비교대상발명 1은 2006. 12. 11. 공고된 대한민국 등록실용신안공보 제433606호에 게재된 ‘튜브형 화장품 용기의 노즐팁’에 관한 것으로서, 주요 내용 및 도면은 별지 2 제1항과 같다.

2) Cited Invention 2 (A No. 15)

Invention 2 is related to “ion pulse” as stated in No. 1998-5632 of the Public Utility Model Gazette published on October 15, 1998, and the main contents and drawings are as specified in attached Form 2(2).

3) Cited Invention 3 (A No. 13)

Cited Invention 3 is related to the “cosmetic preserving cosmetic” published on May 3, 2005 in Korea’s Registration Utility Model Gazette No. 38301.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff rendered a request for invalidation trial against the Defendant, a patentee, on the ground that “the instant patented invention has any reason not to mention the patented invention, is an invention which is impossible to realize it for industrial purposes, and has no possibility of industrial applicability, and should be invalidated due to the denial of newness and non-obviousness by the comparable inventions (2012Da2848).”

2) On April 22, 2013, when the above trial procedure was in progress, the Defendant filed a request for correction to correct the detailed description of the instant patent invention.

3) On December 6, 2013, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that “The correction following the instant request for correction is lawful as it clearly states an ambiguous description.” The scope of the claim for the instant corrected invention is legitimate. There are no grounds not to mention the claims, and it cannot be deemed as an invention which is impossible to realize industrial applicability, and it is not impossible to realize newness and non-obviousness by the comparable inventions.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims by the parties and the issues of the instant case

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the correction of the patented invention of this case does not constitute an ambiguous description, it is illegal, there are grounds for lack of specification in the claims, and newness and non-obviousness are denied by the comparable inventions.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The correction of the patented invention of this case is lawful because it clearly stated an ambiguous description, and there is no ground to lack the description in the claim, and the patented invention does not deny the newness and non-obviousness by the cited inventions.

C. Key issue of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case is (1) whether the request for correction against the instant patented invention is legitimate, (2) whether the newness and non-obviousness of the instant patented invention are denied, and (3) whether there are grounds for lack of specification in the instant patented invention

3. Whether a request for correction against the patented invention of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant provisions

Article 133-2 (Correction of Patent during Invalidation Trial of Patent)

(1) A defendant of a trial under Article 133 (1) may request corrections to the specification or drawing(s) of a patented invention only in cases falling under any subparagraph of Article 136 (1) within the term designated pursuant to Article 147 (1) or the latter part of Article 159 (1).

Article 136 (Trial for Correction)

(1) In any of the following cases, a patentee may request a trial to correct the specification or drawings: Provided, That this shall not apply where an invalidation trial against the patent is pending before the Intellectual Property Tribunal:

1. To narrow a claim;

2. Where a clerical error is corrected;

3. Where an ambiguous description is made clear.

B. Details of correction of the patented invention of this case

On April 22, 2013, the Defendant filed a correction request with respect to the instant patented invention as listed below, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal accepted the correction request as legitimate and rendered the instant trial decision (the corrected part is indicated as the bottom).

A person shall be appointed.

C. Whether the correction of the patented invention of this case constitutes “an ambiguous description”

1) The contents of the instant patent invention are deleted from among the materials that can be selected as the material for the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving in entirety, the phrase “combined product” (amended Matters 1, 2) or “high density plastics, composite material, etc. (amended Matters 3, 4).” Since “a high density plastic, composite material, etc. described in the detailed description of the invention before the correction is not clear in itself or any discrepancy that does not fit in relation to other entries is not likely to occur, the content of the correction cannot be deemed to constitute “a case where an ambiguous description is made clearly.”

2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the above corrective content constitutes “a case where an ambiguous description is clearly made,” since it is aimed at complying with the detailed description of the invention and the claims.”

In contrast, the patent claim of the instant patent invention contains “metallic or mixing” as the material of the heat preserving margin (see Claim Nos. 1, 10, 17). However, the detailed description of the invention prior to the correction contains not only “metallic or mixing,” but also “high density plastics, complex material, etc.” as seen above. Thus, the detailed description of the patent claim and the invention is not identical.

However, as a part specifying the scope of protection of a patented invention, the scope of claims is specified to be supported by the detailed description of the invention (see Articles 42(4) and 97 of the Patent Act), while the detailed description of the invention is clearly and in detail so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily practice the invention (Article 42(3) of the Patent Act). The scope of claims is specified as the scope of protection in whole or in part of the entire technical ideas described in the detailed description. Thus, all technical ideas described in the detailed description should not be included in the scope of claims.

Therefore, since the above corrective contents deleted part of the detailed description of the invention prior to the correction not included in the claims of the patent invention of this case (the "part of high density plastic, composite material, etc." cannot be deemed to constitute "a case where an ambiguous description is made clear", the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

D. Whether the correction request against the patented invention of this case is lawful

As seen earlier, the request for correction against the patented invention of this case is unlawful, since it is not based on legitimate grounds for correction, such as “a clear statement in an ambiguous description” under Articles 133-2(1) and 136(1) of the Patent Act.

4. Whether the patented invention in this case was invalid before the correction.

Although the request for correction of the patented invention of this case is not legitimate, the decision of this case is judged as to the invalidation of the patent based on the specification of the patented invention of this case before the correction, and the decision of this case was examined as to whether the registration of this case was invalid on the basis of the corrected invention of this case before the correction, and first, we examine whether the nonobviousness of the patented invention of this case

A. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

1) Preparation for Claim 1 Inventions and Cited Invention 1

A) The instant Claim 1 invention is “Nice, which combines with nices, equipped with storage facilities to contain the product, contains metal or asphalts, which is equipped with the authorization surface to authorize the product on the surface, and the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving straw, which is placed within the authorization surface, which forms a path to deliver the product connected with the repository, and the product transfer passage includes a seal which forms a passage to deliver the product that is connected with the repository, which is extended through the heat preserving preserving string and completed within the opening of the authorization surface, and the seal is “dice shots including heat scarfs”.

나) 비교대상발명 1은 ‘튜브형 화장품 용기의 노즐팁’에 관한 것으로, 튜브용기(10), 경사면을 구비하는 실리콘 팁(120), 제품 이송 통로를 형성하는 노즐(110)이 개시되어 있다.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C) The two inventions are the same in that they are equipped with a passage to the delivery of products extended through the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving

However, the letter of the instant Claim No. 1 does not limit the royalty of comparable inventions 1, compared to the fact that the letter of the instant Claim No. 1 contains the heat spool, and there is no limitation on such materials (vehicle No. 1). The heat preserving preserving heat of the instant Claim No. 1, compared to the fact that the heat preserving preserving heat of the instant Claim No. 1, compared to the inclusion of metal or mixing, is different from the fact that the net preserving heat of comparable inventions 1 includes the net container (vehicle No.

2) Review of differences between Claim 1 invention and Claim 1 invention in the instant case

A) Examination of differences 1

With respect to the seals of the instant Claim 1 invention, the detailed description of the invention may include, for example, royalties (108) that are not reactioned with the products stored in the repository (104). In other licenses, royalties (108) may be manufactured from a de facto voluntary other material in substance that does not resist or respond to any distributed product, such as a variety of metal, plastics, mixing, compound, compound, compound, etc. In addition, seals (108) shall be located within the authorized side of the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving gap and may form a channel for product transfer connected with the repository (014) (No. 2 of the A evidence identification number [014], and “nit may be composed of, or may be isolated from, the body body with the body body of the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving balance (100) or any product may be distributed as a whole. For example, it may not be distributed with a single heat preserving tape formed with a single material (200) compound or with a single material different form from the heat preserving.

According to the above description, the letter of the instant Claim No. 1 was selected as a material that is not corrosioned or reactioned by the nature of the product while performing the function as a channel for distributing stored products.

However, the component part performing functions as a passage for the distribution of stored products is natural to ordinary technicians, taking into account the characteristics of stored products, and, even in the specification of the comparable invention 1, the letter of “No. 14 [023] is written as “No. 120” (No. 120) double-explosion, and is written as “No. 14” (No. 120). The letter of the instant Claim 1 invention can be easily drawn from the street of the comparable invention 1, since it can be easily drawn from the actual container preserving (120) and the materials that can be double-explosion.

B)Examination of differences 2

(1) The detailed description of the heat preserving heat in the instant Claim No. 1 is that “this invention is related to a dice with the heat preserving heat equipped with the heat preserving preserving and preserving the heat of the prescribed level. The heat preserving preserving preserving heat may have an authorized surface including other materials that can be heated or coolantd and aired for a given period of time and that can maintain the heating or cooling condition. The product may be distributed from the dice in order to authorize the skin to be authorized by the user. The heat preserving heat may be authorized to be distributed from the heat preserving heat. In addition, the heat preserving heat can be conveyed from the user part or the user part to the heat preserving and preserving the heat. In addition, the heat preserving heat can be conveyed from the user part or the user part, and the user can bear the heat identifying number (the heat preserving heat in the heat preserving heat).”

According to the above statement, the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving heat of the instant Claim No. 1 is the composition to make users feel heat sense.

(2) In addition, comparable invention 1’s net tape (120) is a structure that enables the release of a shot and shot, without a shotum, to read a shot and shotly shotly shot and unshotly shotly shotly (see, e.g., Evidence Nos. 14 No. 3, 2, 13, 15, 16 shorts, 4, 1 shorts).

살피건대, 비교대상발명 1의 튜브형 화장품 용기의 노즐팁에서 입술에 접촉하는 부분의 재질(실리콘)이 이 사건 제1항 발명의 열 저장 팁의 재질(금속 또는 세라믹)과는 차이가 있으나, 이는 비교대상발명 1이 추구하는 과제가 이 사건 제1항 발명과 같이 사용자의 ‘열 감각의 전달’이 아니라 ‘부드러운 느낌 등의 전달’이므로 그러한 목적의 차이에 따라 그 재질을 달리 선택한 것에 불과하고, 노즐팁이나 디스펜서 장치에서 입술에 접촉하여 내용물을 바르는 구성부분의 재질로 선택될 수 있는 종류는 그리 많다고 하기 어려워(게다가 이 사건 제1항 발명이나 비교대상발명 1과 같이 ‘금속’, ‘세라믹’, ‘실리콘’ 등 최상위 카테고리로 재질을 특정하는 경우에는 선택할 수 있는 종류가 더욱 제한적이다) 그 중 어느 하나의 재질을 선택하는 것에 구성의 곤란성이 있다고 할 수 없으며, 금속 또는 세라믹을 포함하는 구성(이 사건 제1항 발명의 열 저장 팁)이나 실리콘을 포함하는 구성(비교대상발명 1의 실리콘 팁)은 모두 사용자의 피부에 접촉될 경우 어느 정도 ‘열 감각의 전달’ 또는 ‘부드러운 느낌 등의 전달’의 기능을 수행할 수 있다는 점에서 재질의 선택에 의한 효과의 차이도 정도의 차이에 불과할 뿐 이질적이거나 현저한 것이라고 할 수 없다.

Therefore, the heat preserving preserving heat in the instant Claim No. 1 can be easily derived from the heat preserving heat in the instant Claim No. 1.

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The Defendant asserts that the material of the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving the instant Claim 1 cannot be easily derived from the comparable invention 1, which differs from the purpose and effect of the instant Claim 1, and that the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving the instant Claim 1, which is composed of double covering (110) and double covering, whereas it cannot be applied by double covering, and thus, it cannot be easily derived from the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving the instant Claim 1 in the instant Claim 1.

In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s above assertion, as the materials for the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving funds in the instant Claim 1 can be easily derived from comparable inventions 1.

(A) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 5, the gold-out type refers to a mold made to produce products of the same standard in large quantities, and the gold-out type refers to a well-known and well-known type technology, which means a gold-type, which shapes a product by using a different type of paper and a two-dimensional paper, and whether to adopt a method by double withdrawal can be selected in consideration of the characteristics and manufacturing convenience, stability, cost-economic feasibility, etc. of the target of production. Thus, even if the comparable invention 1 starts to form a system of producing the net container and the No. 1 by double withdrawal, it is reasonable to view that the ordinary technician, referring to the comparable invention 1, is not limited to the production method by double withdrawal, but may consider various production methods according to the above circumstances.

Therefore, even if the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving and straws made by heat resistant polysinates, etc. of the instant Claim No. 1 are difficult to be made by double shooting methods such as comparable invention No. 1, it shall be deemed that it does not interfere with the exchange and withdrawal of the actual container preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving the instant Claim No. 1 by metal, etc. such as the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving the instant Claim No. 1.

(B) In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 16 and 17 evidence, in the invention of “metallic system manufacturing method and metal control device using this method,” and in the invention of “electronic shielding device”, the composition of metal parts and heat oxygen plastic parts are formed by double withdrawal method. Thus, solely on the fact that the difference in the actual container No. 1 of comparable invention 1 was formed by double withdrawal method, it cannot be said that it interferes with the drawing of the heat preserving heat in the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

(c) In addition, the detailed description of the patented invention of this case may be manufactured by straws. However, there may be no voluntary materials that can possess, possess, or deliver heat or air conditioners during the authorization of the product. The examples of other appropriate materials include metal (for example, alz, aluminium, stein, mercury, mercury, stein, stein, stein, stein, stein, stein, composite material of these materials), stein number [014], stein (60) the main body (60) of the heat-storage equipment (stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein), stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein stein s) or compound stein stein stein stein s.60.

B. Whether the invention of this case Nos. 10 and 17 is inventive

1) Preparation for Claim 10 and Claim 17 inventions and Claim 2 of comparable Invention 2

가) 이 사건 제10항 발명은 “디스펜서이며, 제품을 내장하기 위한 저장소를 구비한 하우징과, 하우징에 결합되는 열 저장 팁을 포함하며, 열 저장 팁은 제품을 표면에 인가하기 위해 76.2마이크로센티미터(30마이크로인치) 내지 177.8마이크로센티미터(70마이크로인치)의 표면 마무리를 갖는 인가면과, 열 저장 팁을 통해 연장되고 인가면의 개구 내에서 종결하는 제품 이송 통로를 구비하고, 열 저장 팁은 금속 또는 세라믹을 포함하고, 적어도 300㎣이고 최대로 700㎣인 체적을 갖는 디스펜서”이고, 이 사건 제17항 발명은 “디스펜서이며, 제품을 내장하기 위한 저장소를 구비한 하우징과, 하우징에 결합되는 열 저장 팁을 포함하고, 열 저장 팁은 표면에 제품을 인가하기 위한 인가면과, 열 저장 팁을 통해 연장되고 인가면의 개구 내에서 종결하는 제품 이송 통로를 구비하고, 열 저장 팁은 금속 또는 세라믹을 포함하고, 열 저장 팁은 적어도 0.3그램이고 최대로 0.7그램인 질량과, 적어도 300㎣이고 최대로 700㎣인 체적을 갖는 디스펜서”이다.

B) The comparable Invention 2 is an invention related to “ion pulse”, and the composition of tubes (54), Hd (50), and extension (52), etc. has commenced.

A person shall be appointed.

C) The instant Claim Nos. 10 and 17 and comparable inventions 2 are identical to the instant Claim Nos. 10 and 17: (a) the heat storage heat (Hdd) combined with the erosion (tero-type container) in which the product is stored; (b) the heat storage heat (Hdd) is equipped with the authorization surface (in response to the skin No. 2) and the product transfer passage (Extended part) completed in the opening of the authorization surface; and (c) the Hdddd (50) of the comparable Invention No. 2 performs the function of transmitting electricity to the skin; and (d) the metal is the same as each other.

However, the invention of the instant Claim 10 is limited to the sum of the finishing value of the surface of the authorization surface and the body value of the heat preserving heat, and the invention of the instant Claim 17 is limited to the quality and the body value of the heat preserving heat, compared to that of the instant Claim 17, the comparable invention 2 did not limit such value.

2) Review of the numerical limitation of the invention Nos. 10 and 17 of this case

이 사건 제10항, 제17항 발명의 수치한정에 관하여 발명의 상세한 설명에는, “열 저장 팁(102)은 적어도 일부가 스테인레스 강으로 제조되며, 약 0.3 그램과 약 0.7 그램 사이의 질량을 갖고 약 300㎣과 약 700㎣ 사이의 체적을 갖는다. 더욱 구체적으로는, 열 저장 팁(102)은 약 0.5그램의 질량과, 약 500㎣의 체적을 갖는다. 또한, 몇몇 실시예에서, 인가면(106)은 약 76.2마이크로센티미터(30마이크로인치)와 약 177.8마이크로센티미터(70마이크로인치) 사이의 표면 마무리를 가질 수도 있다. 표면 마무리는 물리적 표면의 높이의 작은 스케일의 변동의 측정치에 대응한다. 약 162.56마이크로센티미터(64마이크로인치)의 표면 마무리는 제조 주형 내측에서 주조(casting) 및 연마(buffing)함으로써 달성될 수도 있는 반면, 보다 미세한 표면 마무리는 연마, 폴리싱(polishing) 또는 크로밍(chroming)과 같은 1개 이상의 2차 작동을 이용하여 달성될 수도 있다. 다양한 예시적인 실시예들의 특징이 설명되는 한편, 다른 실시예에서 열 저장 팁은 디스펜서(100) 내에 포함된 제품을 인가하기에 적절한 임의의 형태로 구성될 수도 있다. 예컨대, 열 저장 팁은 임의의 다른 적절한 형상 및 크기로 구성될 수도 있고, 소정의 인가를 위해 요구되는 임의의 적절한 질량, 표면 마무리 및/또는 표면 처리를 가질 수도 있다.”(갑 제2호증 식별번호 [0017])라고 기재되어 있다.

According to the above statement, the numerical limitation on the completion value of the authorization surface of the No. 10 and 17 invention of this case and on the quality and the body value of the heat preserving heat of this case is merely a simple numerical limitation that does not have significance, quality, or significant effect as a technical means to achieve another task.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 10 and 17 can be easily derived from comparable inventions 2.

C. Whether the invention Nos. 2, 11, and 18 of this case is inventive step

1) The instant Claims 2, 11, and 18 are subordinate claims to the instant Claims 1, 10, and 17, respectively, and limited to the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving funds to the “sterasty lectures.”

2) In the detailed description of the instant patent invention, “heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving

Therefore, as seen in the “existence of the inventive step of the instant Claims Nos. 1, 10, and 17,” the material of the heat preserving preserving device can be easily derived, and thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claims Nos. 2, 11, and 18 is denied by comparable inventions No. 1 or 2.

D. Whether the invention of this case Nos. 3, 12, and 19 is inventive

1) The instant Claim Nos. 3, 12, and 19 are subordinate claims to the instant Claims Nos. 2, 10, and 17, which limit the limitation to the fixed heat preserving gap so that it can not be moved to the underground.

2) In relation to the instant inventions 1 and 2, the nonobviousness (120) or hedging (50) is fixed so that they can not be moved by being installed or combined with the tubes container (10) or the tubes container (54) (see: (a). As such, the instant inventions 2, 12, and 19 can be easily derived from the cited Invention 1 or 2, and their nonobviousness is denied.

E. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step of Nos. 4, 5, 13, 14, and 20

1) The instant Claims Nos. 4, 5, 13, 14, and 20 are subordinate claims of the instant Claims Nos. 1, 10, and 17, respectively, and are limited to “fluoral disc shape” and “fluor shape, original form, or horizontal form,” respectively.

2) In the instant patent invention, the cited invention 1, the original shape of the slope surface (see, e.g., evidence No. 14), and the comparable invention 2, the cited invention 2, the same as, or similar to, the instant Claim No. 4, 5, 13, 14, and 20. The detailed description of the instant patent invention is “heat preserving preserving preserving values are generally visible or easy disc type.” However, in other practices, the heat preserving preserving preserving values may generally take another prescribed form, such as the original shape, other cause type, e.g., the e., wire line shape, flat type, flat type, square, bridge type, salvine type, salke type, salke type, salke type, salke type, salke type, and combination thereof (see, e.g., evidence No. 6, 7).

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claims Nos. 4, 5, 13, 14, and 20 can be easily derived from comparable inventions 1 or 2, and their nonobviousness is denied.

F. Whether the invention of this case was inventively inventive, 7, 15, 16

1) 이 사건 제6, 7, 15, 16항 발명은 이 사건 제1, 10항 발명의 종속항으로서, 열 저장 팁의 질량(0.3그램 내지 0.6그램) 또는 체적(450㎣ 내지 550㎣)을 한정하고 있다.

2) As seen earlier, as seen in the “the inventive step of the instant Claims Nos. 10 and 17,” the numerical limitation of the quality or physical value of the heat preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving preserving the instant patented invention is merely a simple numerical limitation that does not possess any significance or special effect as a technical means to achieve other tasks. As such, the instant inventions Nos. 6, 7, 15, and 16 can be easily derived from Cited Invention 1 or 2.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 6, 7, 15, and 16 is denied by comparable inventions 1 or 2.

G. Whether the invention of this case was inventive step

1) The Claim 8 invention of this case is subordinate to the Claim 1 invention of this case, and limited the material of the Humanart to “solpropyn included”.

2) In the instant Claim 8 invention, it does not include a description in the detailed description of the invention that shows any effect by limiting the human material to “solpropye including” in the instant Claim 8, and limiting the material of human material to “solpropye” is merely a more specific limitation on the extended line that restricts the material of human material in the instant Claim 1 invention to “heatpropool”.

Therefore, since the instant Claim 8 invention can be easily derived from comparable inventions 1, its nonobviousness is denied.

H. Whether the invention of this case Nos. 9 and 21 is inventive

1) Inventions 9 and 21 of this case are subordinate claims of the instant Claims 1 and 17, and limited to “the product transfer equipment to distribute products from disure” to “the product transfer equipment, including the anti-dop character exercise transfer equipment, the clock exercise transfer equipment, the pressure clock transfer equipment, the Ebpppp transfer equipment, or the Ebpppp transfer equipment, or the dice clock transfer equipment, including the Ebp transfer equipment.”

2) In the instant Claim Nos. 9 and 21, the term “a pressure pipe transport equipment”, such as the pipe-type cosmetics container, which is designed to substitute the contents among selective limited components in the instant Claim Nos. 9 and 21, began in comparable inventions 1. As such, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 9 and 21 invention can be easily derived from comparable inventions 1 and 2, and its inventive step is denied.

(i) Reorganization;

In full view of the above contents, the invention of the Nos. 1 through 21 of the instant case ought to be invalidated due to the denial of non-obviousness by comparable inventions 1 and 2.

5. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

Thus, although the non-obviousness of the invention of this case prior to the correction is denied and its registration should be invalidated, the trial decision of this case is unlawful without examining the non-obviousness or newness of the patented invention of this case.

6. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judges Jeon Man-tae(Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Cited Invention 1, 2, and 3 constitute “a device” as a utility model. However, as the comparison with the instant patent invention is in a relationship with the instant patent invention, the cited Invention 1, 2, and 3 is called “invention.”