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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The identity of a device as stipulated in Article 4(3) of the Utility Model Act with respect to an expanded earlier application is distinguishable from the inventive step of the device. Whether the technical composition of the two devices is identical or not, and the effect of the device is also considered. Even if there is a difference in the technical composition, if the difference in the technical composition is merely an addition, deletion, or alteration of widely known and commonly used technology, and it is merely an insignificant difference in the extent that no new effect arises, the two devices are substantially identical. However, if the difference in the technical composition of the two devices deviates from the above degree, the difference in the two devices is within the scope that can easily be derived by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the device belongs, even if it is not identical.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2179, Apr. 28, 2011). 2. We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records.

A. Paragraph 2 (2) of the claim(s) of the registered device(s)(s)(2)(hereinafter “instant claim(s)(s) of the instant registered device(s)(s)(s)(s)(2)(hereinafter “instant claim(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s

However, there is a problem.