In a case where the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patent claim No. 1 invention could be easily derived from combinations 1 and 2 of the preceding invention, in the case where the patent applicant of the Korean Intellectual Property Office denied the inventive step with respect to the patent application invention of the foreign company Gap, "the method of manufacturing metal sets with the optimal over-doping, corresponding metal sets, parts, and vehicles", the case holding that the nonobviousness of the patent claim No. 1 invention is denied

It is a case where the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office made a decision of rejection on the patent application invention of the foreign company Gap, "the manufacturing method of metal sets with optimal over-doping, corresponding metal trial sets, parts, and vehicles", on the ground that the inventive step is denied by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

In comparison with the claim 1 invention, the elements 1 and 2 of the claim 1 are the same as those of the prior invention 1, corresponding thereto, and the elements 3 are "the external surface of the upper metal 7 is not more than 0.35 square meters prior to selective operation," and the non-obviousness of the prior invention 1 is different from the upper price of the upper 0.53 square meters prior to 0.53 square meters prior to the upper 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd m.

Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

Esel (ARCROTRITTRAL INVGOOO YD Y DESOTRAL YAL) Korea Patent Attorney Korea or patent attorney in charge, Kim Jong-moo et al. (one person, both Korea and the patent attorney in charge, both of whom are patent attorneys)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

May 2, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 23, 2018 on the case No. 2016 Won5461 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Application invention of this case (Evidence A No. 2)

(i)the name of the invention: the method of manufacturing metal sets with the best over-doping and the corresponding metal sets, parts and vehicles;

2) The international filing date / the priority claim date / translation submission date and the application number: February 10, 2014 / December 11, 2015 / (application number omitted)

3) Applicant: The plaintiff

4) Claims

【Request No. 1 1 As a metal sheet (1). The above metal sheet (1) contains steel plates (3) and at least one side (5) of the said steel plate (5) shall be co-shapedd with a metal painting (7) which has been defilled by breaking the plate at a bath (hereinafter “ent 1”) and the above metal painting contains Al with a weight of 0.2 to 0.7%, and the remainder includes Znn, inevitable non-nets and selectively, Si, Sbb, Pb, Ci, Cn, Mnn, Cr, Crr, Crr, Crr, Zr or Bi, and the additional weight of each of the above metal plates (7) is less than 0.3% of the total external weight of the Claim No. 3 (7) above, and the remainder is less than 0.3% of the previous paragraph (3) 5.0% of the previous paragraph (3)(hereinafter “the previous paragraph”).

【Request 2 to 10】 (Each entry omitted)

(v)the main contents of the invention;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Prior inventions

1) Note 1 of the Prior Invention 1 (No. 1)

A) Prior inventions 1 are related to “the manufacturing method of the separation of metals in an improved external form” published on March 19, 2012 and published in accordance with Article 10-2012-26548 of the Patent Gazette, and the main contents and drawings are as follows:

B) Main contents

본문내 포함된 표 [1] 기술분야 및 해결하고자 하는 기술적 과제 육상 모터 차량용 부품의 제조를 위한 강판에는, 일반적으로 내부식용 아연계 금속층이 도금되고, 아연계 액체 욕에서의 용융 도금(hot-dip coating)에 의해 또는 아연 이온을 포함하는 전해 도금욕에서 전착(electrodeposition)함으로써 증착된다. 차체 부품의 제조를 위한 아연도금강판은 포밍 작업을 받게 되며, 조립되어 화이트 바디(body-in-white)를 형성하며 이후 적어도 1종의 페인트가 코팅됨으로써 내부식성이 더 좋아지며 매력적인 표면 외형을 제공한다. 이를 위해, 종래에는 먼저 화이트 바디에 전기영동 코팅(cataphoretic coating)이 적용되고, 페인트의 프라이머 코트, 페인트의 베이스 코트 및 선택적으로 바니시 코트가 후속된다. 만족스러운 페인트 처리 표면 외형을 얻기 위해서, 일반적으로는 예컨대, 20~30㎛ 두께의 전기영동 코팅, 40~50㎛ 두께의 페인트 프라이머 코트 및 30~40㎛ 두께의 베이스 코트로 이루어진, 90~120㎛의 총페인트 두께가 도포된다. 페인트 시스템의 두께를 90㎛ 미만으로 감소시키기 위해서, 소정의 오토모빌 제조사들은 전기영동 단계를 없애거나 페인트 코트의 수를 감소시켜 생산성을 증가시키는 것에 대해 제안하였다. 그러나 현재에는, 페인트 시스템의 이러한 두께 감소가 부품의 페인트 처리된 표면의 최종 외형에 항상 손상을 주므로 산업적인 생산에서는 구현되지 않는다. 이는, 베이스 기재로서 기능하는 아연계 코팅의 표면이, 소위 “파상도(waviness)”를 갖기 때문인데, 이 파상도는 현재에는 바디 부품으로 허용되지 않는 소위 “오렌지 필(orange peel)”이라는 불리한 점을 갖는 상태에서 두꺼운 코트에 의해서만 보상될 수 있다(식별번호 [0002] 내지 [0008] 참조). 본 발명의 목적은, 스트립의 파상도(Wa0.8)가 종래 기술의 스트립보다 작아 종래 기술의 부품과 비교하여 작은 전체 페인트 두께를 필요로 하는 페인트 처리된 금속 부품의 제조를 가능케 하는 내부식 코팅이 코팅된 금속 스트립의 제조 방법을 제공하는 것이다(식별번호 [0009] 참조). [2] 발명의 내용 본 발명에 따른 방법에 사용된 도금욕의 조성은, 특히 아연 또는 아연 합금계일 수도 있지만, 알루미늄 또는 알루미늄 합금계일 수도 있다. 이들 원소들 양자는 부식으로부터 스트립을 보호한다. 도금욕의 조성은 Si, Sb, Pb, Ti, Ca, Mn, Sn, La, Ce, Cr, Ni, Zr 또는 Bi와 같은 선택적인 추가 원소의 중량%로 0.3%까지 함유할 수도 있다. 이러한 다양한 원소들은 특히, 예컨대 코팅의 내부식성 또는 코팅의 취성 또는 코팅의 접착을 개선하기 위해 사용될 수도 있다(식별번호 [0046] 내지 [0047] 참조). 본 발명자들은, 본 발명에 따른 와이핑 가스를 사용하고, 스트립이 이러한 감금 영역을 통과하게 함으로써, 놀랍게도 종래 기술의 코팅된 스트립의 파상도보다 더 작은 파상도를 갖는 코팅이 얻어진다는 사실을 발견하였다. -중략- 본 발명에 따른 방법에서 사용된 감금 박스에는, 낮은 산화력을 갖는 가스 또는 불활성 가스가 공급될 수도 있고, 또는 노즐로부터 배출되는 와이핑 가스의 흐름에 의해 단순하게 공급될 수도 있다. 와이핑 가스의 산화력은 4vol% 산소 및 96vol%의 질소로 구성된 혼합물의 산화력으로 제한되는데, 이는 이 정도를 초과하는 산화는, 코팅의 파상도를 종래 기술보다 개선하지 못하기 때문이다. 이에 반해, 감금 분위기의 산화력에 대한 하한은, 0.15vol% 산소 및 99.85vol%의 질소로 구성된 혼합물의 산화력으로 제한설정되는데, 이는 이러한 감금 분위기가 충분한 산화성이 아니라면, 이 분위기의 사용이 아직 응고되지 못한 코팅으로부터 아연 증발을 촉진시키며, 이러한 증기는 감금 박스를 오염시키고, 그리고/또는 스트립에 재증착될 수도 있으며, 이에 의해 받아들일 수 없는 가시적 결함을 유발하기 때문이다(식별번호 [0068] 내지 [0072] 참조).

2) Note 2 to the preceding invention 2 (No. 2)

A) Prior inventions 2 are related to “technology that manufactures high-speed air conditioners” published on December 24, 2001 and published in the Patent Gazette published on December 24, 2001 and published in the Korean Patent Gazette by Ordinance No. 201-112968, and the main contents and drawings are as follows:

B) Main contents

본문내 포함된 표 [1] 기술분야 및 해결하고자 하는 기술적 과제 통상 도금강판은 용융아연도금만 실시한 용융아연도금강판(GI)과 열처리를 실시하는 합금화용융아연도금강판(GA)으로 나눌 수 있는데, 본 발명은 냉간압연 후 강판의 표면상태가 파상도 0.35㎛ 이하 및 DOI 값이 90% 이상으로 하기 위하여 냉간압연 로울 중 #5 stand 압연 로울을 방전가공(EDT; Electro Discharge Texturing)으로 가공모드는 용량(-)모드 또는 임펄스(+) 모드로 하여 상부로울은 2.3㎛, 하부로울은 2.2㎛ 이하의 조도로 관리된 압연 로울을 사용하여 냉간압연 후 제조된 강판의 표면상태가 파상도(Wca) 0.35㎛ 이하 DOI 값이 90% 이상인 고선영 냉연강판을 사용하여 용융아연도금, Fe-Zn 합금화열처리 및 조질압연 공정을 거쳐 자동차 외판재 고선영 합금화용융아연도금강판을 제조하는 기술로서 상세한 내용은 다음과 같다(제2면 ‘발명이 이루고자 하는 기술적 과제’ 부분 참조). [2] 발명의 내용 본 발명에서 고선영 합금화용융아연도금강판을 제조하기 위하여 사용하는 냉연강판은 도금강판의 표면상태에 많은 영향을 미치므로 냉연강판의 표면상태가 파상도 0.35㎛ 이하 DOI 값이 90% 이상인 냉연강판을 사용하여 용융아연도금을 하여 Zn-Fe 합금화열처리하는 단계와 조질압연을 실시하는 단계로 이루어져 있다. 고선영 냉연강판을 사용하는 이유는 도금강판의 표면상태는 냉연강판의 표면상태에 영향을 받는다는 것이 확인되었기 때문이다(제2면 ‘발명의 구성 및 작용’ 부분 중 첫 번째 내지 두 번째 단락 참조). 도금공정에서 침적시간과 아연욕 온도는 도금강판의 품질에 서로 유사한 영향을 미치게 되나 하나의 인자에 편중되게 되면 작업성이 저하되거나 제품품질이 떨어질 수 있다. -중략- 여기서 아연부착량을 한정한 것은 자동차 외판재로 사용하기 위해서 요구되는 내식성을 만족시키며, 생산공정에서 합금화열처리 및 조질압연 후 고선영성을 가지기 위한 최적의 조건으로 도출되었기 때문이다(제2면 아래에서 두 번째 단락 참조). 다음은 에어 나이프(air knife) 상단(후지점) 약 55~60cm에 설치된 가열설비 Fe-Zn 합금화열처리 단계이다. 본 발명의 중요한 단계로서 아연도금된 스트립(Strip)을 약 515~525℃의 온도로 가열하기 위하여 가열설비로 통상 10℃ 정도 높은 530℃로 가열하게 되는데, 이유는 -중략- 도금 부착성이 강화되어 가공성이 향상되며, 도금강판 표면이 고선영성을 유지할 수 있다. 가열온도를 상기와 같이 한정한 이유는 제시된 온도보다 낮을 경우 합금화 진행상태가 늦어지는 문제점이 있으며, 온도가 높을 경우 합금화 진행상태가 빨라져 합금층이 균일성을 가지지 못하고 불규칙하게 형성될 수 있어 도금강판의 표면상태에 악영향을 미칠 수 있다. 이때 유지시간은 약 9~10초 정도가 필요하게 되는데 합금화에 필요한 소요시간이다. 여기서 가열온도를 520℃로 설정한 이유는 -중략- 적정한 온도구간을 도출 생산공정에 적용하여 제품의 파상도가 양호한 값을 나타낼 때의 온도이다(제2면 마지막 단락 참조). 다음 단계는 상기와 같이 작업된 도금강판을 조질압연하는 단계로서 조질압연 로울을 임펄스(+) 모드로 조도는 상부로울을 1.8㎛ 이하, 하부로울은 1.7㎛ 이하로 방전가공된 로울을 사용하여 소재 두께별로 다음과 같은 산술식에 의하여 계산된 압하력으로 조질압연하며, 이때의 연신은 약 0.3~0.4%이다. 다음의 산출식에 의하여 압하력을 결정하는 것은 도금층의 손실 방지 및 파상도를 제어하기 위해서이다. 압하력 = {두께(t)×(5~7)×10t} 여기서 조도가 상기와 같이 관리된 압연로울을 사용하는 것은 수차에 걸친 생산공정 실험에 의하여 확인된 것으로서 조질압연 후 파상도(Wca) 0.35㎛ 이하 및 DOI값 90% 이상의 고선영 도금강판을 얻을 수 있었다. -중략- 냉연강판의 표면상태가 도금강판 표면에 영향을 미친다는 것이 확인되어 고선영 도금강판의 제조에 사용한 냉연강판은 표 1과 같은 표면상태를 가진 제품을 사용하였다(제3면 세 번째 단락 내지 다섯 번째 단락 참조).

C. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On January 18, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the submission of the instant patent application on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the instant invention is denied since a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily make inventions by combining the cited invention 1 or the cited invention 1 and the cited invention 2.”

2) On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted the nonobviousness by submitting a written opinion on March 18, 2016. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the instant patent application invention on the ground that the said ground for rejection was not resolved on June 27, 2016.

3) On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it with the case of 2016 Won5461. On August 23, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The instant patent application invention has a difference below 0.35 assessment level in comparison with the cited invention 1, but the difference can be easily derived through the simplification of ordinary technicians, such as repeated experiments, and the technical matters that are controlled below 0.35 assessment level in comparison with the cited Invention 2 were initiated. As the instant patent application invention can easily be seen through the cited invention 1 and 2, its nonobviousness is denied, and if there exists any ground for rejection in a patent application, the patent application must be rejected as a whole.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The 3 elements of the instant Claim 1 invention cannot be easily derived from the prior inventions because the corresponding elements are not included in the 1 and 2 prior inventions, and there is a critical significance in the numerical limitation of the numerical limit of the 3th degrees of strike. Thus, the invention of the instant case including the instant Claim 1 invention should be recognized non-obviousness. Accordingly, the trial decision of the instant case, which different conclusions, is unlawful.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The 3 elements of the instant Claim 1 invention can be easily derived from prior inventions 1 and 2, and there is no clinical significance with respect to the numerical limitation of the numerical limitation of the numerical limitation of the 3 pro quo of the said elements, and thus, the nonobviousness of the instant patent application invention should be denied. Accordingly, the instant trial decision, as seen above, is lawful.

3. Determination as to the illegality of the trial decision of this case

A. Relevant legal principles

In cases where a patent-registered invention expresses only the scope of the elements of the invention publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application in numerical value, if there is a difference between the task and effect of the patent invention on the extension of the publicly known invention and that of numerical value, the patent invention is merely a simple numerical limitation to the extent that an ordinary technician can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments, and thus its inventive step is denied (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da40563, Feb. 12, 1993; 2007Hu1299, Nov. 16, 2007, etc.). However, even if there are other elements that can recognize inventive step in the patent invention, if the numerical limitation in the patent invention is the same as the supplementary element, or if there is no difference between the numerical limitation and the two inventions except the numerical limitation, the inventive step of the patent invention is not denied after 90Do1984, Nov. 19, 207.

In addition, in order for not to deny the inventive step of a selective invention including numerical limitation inventions, all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have different effects from those of the preceding invention in quality, or there is a remarkable difference in quantity even if there is no qualitative difference. In this case, the detailed description of the selective invention must clearly state the above effects compared to the preceding invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Hu2740, Apr. 25, 2003; 2005Hu3338, Sept. 6, 2007). In order to clearly state such effects, the detailed description of the selective invention must include specific contents or quantity that can confirm the qualitative difference in the detailed description of the selective invention, and a quantitative statement that can confirm a significant difference in quantity (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu736, Oct. 15, 2009).

B. Whether the invention under paragraph (1) of this case is inventive step

1) Preparation for the instant Claim 1 invention and for each component of the Prior Invention 1

- Paragraph 1 of this case as an invention of 11 metal (1) of this case contained in the main text. The above metal market (1) contains strong board (3) and at least one side (5) of the strong board is with respect to the method of melting metal joints (7) and manufacturing internal metal stressing (see, e.g., 010/ [01/ and 01] to 30.0% of the total 0.2 through 0.7% of the above metal market (see, e.g., e., e., e. g., e. g., e. g., e. g., e. g., e. g., g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. g. >

(ii) common points and differences;

(A) the component 1

The components 1 are as metal trial (1). The above metal market (1) contains steel plates (3) and at least one side (5) of the said steel market (3) is carried out in a metal painting (7) which has been caught by breaking the flag at a bath. As corresponding components, prior inventions 1 are related to the manufacturing method of internal metal molding, and the prior inventions 1 are related to the manufacturing method of metal stressing with internal metal market, and the number (010/011/ [see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 00] or 011] of which metal market transits through melting metal market. Accordingly, both response elements are identical in that metal market (which is no dispute over this point) is carried out in such a way as breaking metal market by breaking the metal market (string) in a bath (string).

B) Components 2

The components 2 include Al of the upper metal weight of 0.2 to 0.7%, and the remainder includes Zn, inevitable French things and selectively, there are at least one additional elements selected from Si, Sb, Pb, Ti, Mn, Ln, La, Cr, Cr, Zr, Zr or Bi, and the weight content of each additional source of the above metal eco-rating (7) is less than 0.3%, and the previous invention 1 is corresponding to this, “the creation of Doping can be an Alumin or an Aluminium, but there is no dispute between Aluminium or Aluminium 9% of the weight content(9% of the weight) and 90% of the total weight(9% of the 30% of the total weight(9% of the 90% of the 30% of the 30% of the 5% of the 90% of the weight(the 97% of the 30% of the 30% of the weight(the 5% of the 30% of the Z).

C) Components 3

The components 3 are “the external surface of the upper metal joints(7) with not more than 0.35boards prior to the operation of the sprink, and not more than 0.35boards.” As corresponding components, prior inventions 1 are presented 0.53boards prior to the sprinks in the lowest price of the sprinks prior to the Sprinks (see, e.g., evidence 1, No. 11, No. 11, No. 15). The two response components are different in the sprinks prior to the sprinks.

D) Reorganization

Therefore, the issue of the inventive step of the instant Claim No. 1 depends on whether a person with ordinary skill, at the time of filing the patent application for the instant invention, can easily derive from the prior invention No. 1 and No. 2.

3) Specific determination

A) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that a person with ordinary skills could have easily derived from prior inventions 1 and 2, the constituent elements of which are differences with prior inventions 1 at the time of filing the patent application for the invention of this case.

① All of the instant Claim 1 inventions and Prior Invention 1, and 2 are the same as the subject and effect of each of the instant inventions in order to minimize the surface condition (see the main contents of each of the instant inventions). In other words, in order to improve the surface condition, it is intended to lower the impact of metal sets during the manufacturing process (see the main contents of each of the instant inventions).

② The specification of the patent application invention of this case, including the invention of this case, states that “The reduction of the frequency level may allow the reduction of the thickness of the paint used to obtain the given nature of the paint, or allow the improvement of the quality of the paint with respect to the specific thickness of the paint (see evidence 2, 3, 012),” as the effect of the patent application invention of this case, including the invention of this case, is merely an entry of the general effect due to the decline in the frequency, in light of the contents, etc. of the prior inventions as follows. In addition, it does not include any description as to the effect of the prior inventions in relation to “the reduction of the frequency level” and the effect of the prior inventions in relation to “the effect of the prior inventions not more than 0.35,00 prior inventions,” and it does not include any description as to any significant difference in quantity or qualitatively different effect or quantity.

This is due to the fact that the surface of an Allied Corning that functions as a beer 1 [O06] , and so-called so-called malgorithr which is not allowed now, can only be compensated by the unbrepter under the condition that it is less than so-called marratized part which is not allowed in the present. (See 009) The purpose of this invention is to provide 000 square meters of margratization in a less than the previous technology so that it is more closely related to the surface of the 2ndral surface so that it is more than the previous technology so that it is difficult to manufacture the margratized part of the surface of the 2ndral margratized part of the surface so that it is possible to manufacture the margratized part of the surface so that it is more than the second margrative part of the surface of the previous technology [the second margral part of the surface of the 2ndrmothic part].

③ 원고는, (i) 페인팅 이후 외관을 정량화하는 변수가 장파 파상도 LW인데(참고자료 1), (ii) 자동차 제조업자들은 자동차 외관을 위해 장파 파상도 ‘LW ≤ 30’인 금속 시트를 요구하고 있고, (iii) 금속 시트의 제조 공정 중 변형 후 파상도가 0.43㎛ 이하인 조건에서만 위 장파 파상도 ‘LW ≤ 30’가 달성되며(참고자료 2, 참고자료 3), (iv) 이 사건 출원발명의 명세서에서 스킨 패스 전 파상도를 0.35㎛ 이하로 제어하면 변형 후 파상도를 0.43㎛ 이하로 제어할 수 있음이 기재되어 있으므로, 결국 스킨 패스 전 파상도를 0.35㎛ 이하로 하는 구성요소 3은 자동차 부품 외관에 대한 현저한 개선 효과가 있는 것이라는 취지로 주장한다.

그러나 구성요소 3으로 인한 질적으로 상이한 효과 또는 양적으로 현저한 차이가 있음을 확인할 수 있는 정량적 기재가 이 사건 출원발명의 명세서에 포함되어 있지 아니함은 앞서 본 바와 같은바, 추가 실험자료인 위 참고자료들에 의하여 인정되거나 확인되는 수치한정의 기술적 의의로 이 사건 제1항 발명의 진보성 있음을 뒷받침하려는 원고의 주장은 그 주장 사실의 당부에 관계없이 받아들일 수 없다. 나아가 원고의 위 주장 사실 자체에 대하여 보더라도, 우선 원고가 제출한 참고자료 1 내지 3은 저자 또는 실험자, 작성일 또는 실험일 등의 기본적인 서지사항조차 확인되지 않고 있어 이를 근거로 구성요소 3의 현저한 효과를 인정할 수 없다. 또한 원고가 내세운 일련의 전제요건들 중 위 (ii) 자동차 제조업자들이 장파 파상도 ‘LW ≤ 30’의 조건을 요구한다는 점은 그 합당한 근거를 기록상 찾아볼 수 없고, 위 (iii) 장파 파상도 ‘LW ≤ 30’가 달성되는 조건이 스킨 패스 전 파상도 0.35㎛ 이하라는 점도 참고자료 2, 3으로 명확히 뒷받침된다 볼 수 없으며(원피고 모두 참고자료 3의 그래프에 대하여 나름의 각 추세선을 부가하여 원고는 변형 후 파상도 0.43㎛를 기준으로 장파장이 매우 빠르게 변화한다고 주장한 반면, 피고는 위 0.43㎛를 기준으로 장파장이 변화하였다고 볼 수 없다고 주장하나, 위 각 추세선을 통한 원피고의 주장은 모두 받아들일 수 없다), 위 (iv) 변형 후 파상도를 0.43㎛ 이하로 하기 위하여 스킨 패스 전 파상도를 0.35㎛ 이하로 하는 구성요소 3이 만족되어야 한다는 점이 이 사건 출원발명의 명세서에 기재된 내용이라고 보기 곤란한바(오히려 이 사건 출원발명의 명세서 식별번호 [0069] 내지 [0095] 기재내용에 의하면, 구성요소 3인 ‘스킨 패스 전 파상도 0.35㎛ 이하’는 변형 후 파상도 0.43㎛ 이하가 아닌 변형 후 파상도 0.45㎛ 이하에 대응하는 값으로 일응 해석된다), 이 부분 원고의 주장은 어느 모로 보나 이유 없다.

B) Determination on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in prior inventions 1, the lowest Skin’s upper level was only 0.53 having started to be set up, and is different from the constituent elements 3 that limited the Skin’s upper level to not more than 0.35boards. The prior inventions 2 began only after Skin’s upper level after Skin’s upper level was set up, but does not begin with the skin’s upper level, such as constituent elements 3, and thus, it cannot be easily derived from the prior inventions 1 and 2 as above, the instant Claim 1, including constituent elements 3.

In full view of the foregoing evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, ① all of the prior inventions of this case and prior inventions 1 and 2 share basic tasks and effects to lower the wave level of metal scrap in the manufacturing process to minimize surface condition, ② the prior inventions 1 are not likely to limit 0.53 pins chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers chers 2s chers chers.

In light of the above recognized circumstances, only the commencement of prior inventions 1 and 2 on the premise of the strike of a specific numerical value and the strike of a specific phase cannot be deemed to exist. Thus, the prior invention’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the prior invention 1 does not fully state the formula (A) or (D) regarding the manufacturing method of the instant patent application invention, which can be seen as the strike of its constituent elements 3, and that there is no motive to derive such awareness, the Plaintiff cannot find a method that reduces the sprinks to less than 0.35 sprinks from the prior invention 1 through the prior invention 1.

However, Paragraph 1 invention of this case is not an invention including the formula (A) or (D) on the manufacturing process stated in the specification of this case, but an invention included in the numerical limitation of 0.35 degrees of sprinks in the manufacturing process of metal sets according to the above formula. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the formula (A) or (D) on the manufacturing process, which is not included in the elements of paragraph 1 invention of this case as an element of non-obviousness, as well as the numerical limitation of 0 or less times of sprinks in the manufacturing process (the numerical limitation of sprinks) to be indicated in the specifications of this case. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is not deemed to have an obvious effect as an object of determination of inventive step, or that the numerical limitation of sprinks is not recognized as having such effect on the numerical limitation of elements 3 of the invention of this case. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is based on the premise that the sprinks’ prior manufacturing temperature or sprinks’ 3) method or s pug.

Therefore, the above plaintiff's assertion to the purport that the circumstance in which the formula (A) or (D) on the manufacturing method of the specification of the invention of this case is not commenced in the Prior Invention 1 is connected to the prior Invention 1 is not derived from the Prior Invention 1.

(3) The Plaintiff, as mentioned in the preceding invention 2, has a high level of surface strike before the skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s skin’s s.

A person shall be appointed.

Plaintiff’s preparatory brief No. 19 of December 3, 2018

The above additional experimental materials presented by the Plaintiff do not confirm the basic contents of the experiment, experiment date, and note 6). The effect of components 3 cannot be recognized on this basis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

4) Sub-determination

Inasmuch as the instant Claim 1 invention can easily be derived from the combinations of prior inventions 1 and 2 by a person with ordinary skill, the inventive step is denied.

C. Whether the invention described in paragraphs (2) through (10) of this case is inventive step

Where several claims exist in one patent application, if any ground for rejection exists in any of the claims, the patent application shall be rejected in entirety. As seen earlier, insofar as the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 is denied and thus the patent is not patentable, the invention in the instant application cannot be patentable in entirety without having to examine the remainder of the claims.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)

1) In the instant trial decision, the cited invention 1 was submitted.

Note 2) In the instant trial decision, the cited Invention 2 was submitted.

Note 3) In the components 3, the limit is limited to the length limit of “selective skin operation”. This means the level of slin’s slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin slin sl.

Note 4) The value of the test under paragraph 15 in the table No. 15 of the Certificate No. 1.

Note 5) Generally, the manufacturing process of metal sheets for parts is conducted in the order of the process of air conditioners, golding, sinns, and marcing, etc., and may be changed in each stage. In light of the language and text of the claims in paragraph 1 of this case, the marc degree of the elements of the claim in paragraph 1 of this case can be understood as a strike in the phase prior to sinkin’s failure.

(6) After the closing of the argument in this case, the Plaintiff presented a list, etc. to the effect that the test conditions for the above additional test data are met through the reference documents referred to in June 5, 2019, but this also cannot be identified by the originator, and the contents cannot be identified. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as the test conditions for the above additional test data.