The case denying the inventive step on the ground that the registered device with the name "debrising container" is not different in the composition and effect of the cited device and the structure and effect of the foundation for the preparation of a foundation for an electrical

The case denying the inventive step on the ground that the registered device with the name "defluor container" is not different in the composition and effect of the cited device and the structure and effect of the foundation for the preparation of an electrical structure.

Article 4 (2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of September 23, 1998) (see current Article 5 (2))

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Yoon-con et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 99Heo871 delivered on December 23, 1999

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The court below determined that the non-obviousness of a container consisting of 1) and lids (2) composed of lids (1) and lids (2) indicated in an enclosed container (2) which is sealed by lids (3) with a lids attached to lids (2) shall be slided by inserting two lids (4) (4') into a specific intervals (5) with a string unit (4') unit, and the string (3''') of the shape of the L person's lids (3'') is hard to see that there is a very complicated structure between the 1) unit and the lids (3'') with the outer side surface (3'') structure and the 1) unit with the outer side lids (3'') structure and the 1) unit with the outer side lids (3'') structure different from the 1) unit with the outer side lids (3'') structure and the 1) unit from the new 7-A unit with the outer wall (1'6'this case's solid.

However, in comparison with the registered device 1 in this case, it is difficult to deny the newness of the registered device in this case, which adopts a pattern of 1 without identical to those of the quoted device 1. However, in the purpose or use of the two devices, the registered device in this case only stated "closed container" within the scope of the application for registration, and it is not unclear by the above term itself. It is not possible to specify the purpose of the registered device in this case by restricting the use of the registered device in the detailed description of the device, because it constitutes a type of "closed container", which falls under the category 1 of the registered device, and thus, it cannot be said that there exists a difference between the two device and the outer lid of the registered device in its composition and effect, and it cannot be said that there is a difference between the registered device 1 and the outer lid of the outer lid and the outer lid of the registered device in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the registered device of this case was non-obviousness compared to the cited device 1. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the inventive step of utility model or failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)