[1] The case affirming the judgment below that the nonobviousness of the patent claim 1 of a patented invention whose name is "the manufacturing method of plastic containers containing charcoal" is denied since it can easily be seen by ordinary technicians from comparable inventions 1, which is "the manufacturing method of plastic containers containing charcoal"

[2] The meaning of “the technical field to which the invention pertains” under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, and the case where the comparable invention in the industrial field using the patented invention and the other industrial field can be used as the prior art denying the inventive step of the patented invention

[3] The case holding that the claim No. 3 inventions and technical field of the patented invention are not identical to the claim No. 3 inventions of the patented invention, which is named as "slurgy drying device", but can be used without any particular difficulties to solve the task of removing resin in the process of manufacturing vinyl or plastic containers containing charcoal, since the claim No. 3 inventions can be used as prior art denying the inventive step of the claim No. 3 inventions

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [3] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2059 decided Jul. 10, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1176)

[Defendant-Appellant] K&C Co., Ltd.

Defendant (Patent Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo1309 Decided October 1, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, technical field is identical or closely related to the instant patent invention (patent No. 828585) No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) using the name “a method for manufacturing vinyl containing charcoal” and “a method for manufacturing plastic containers containing charcoal” as stated in the judgment of the court below regarding “a method for manufacturing plastic containers containing charcoal” as stated in paragraph 1 of the scope of the instant patent invention (patent No. 8285) and “a method for manufacturing plastic chips using mixtures, such as powder and polyethylene,” and the technical field of the instant Claim No. 1 is identical or closely related to the instant technical field. 3 composition of the instant Claim No. 1 in the judgment of the court below as indicated in the judgment of the court below is “a method for manufacturing plastic chips containing charcoal,” which is “a method for completely removing veterinary chips by 4 hours from the heat of 90°C,” and both response parts can be removed from the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 in the process of removing the composition of the instant Claim No. 1.

Thus, the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case is denied since ordinary technicians can easily make inventions from comparable inventions 1. Thus, the court below is just in holding to the same purport, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as to the determination of inventive step, as otherwise alleged in the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

“The technical field to which the invention pertains” as prescribed by Article 29(2) of the Patent Act refers to the industrial sector in which the patented invention in question is used in principle. Therefore, in a case where the industrial sector in which the patented invention in question is used is different from the one in which the patented invention in question is used, even if it is difficult to use the cited invention as a prior art that denies the inventive step of the patented invention in question, if the technical composition of the cited invention in question is not a composition that can only be applied to a particular industrial sector, but can be used without any difficulty by a person with ordinary knowledge in the industrial sector of the patented invention in question to solve the adverse technical problem of the patented invention in question, it may be deemed as the prior art that denies the inventive step of the patented invention in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, comparable invention 2 concerns “sluring device” and the technical field of the instant Claim 3 invention and the comparable invention 1, but the sludge drying device, which was launched in the comparable invention 2, is not applicable only to a specific industrial field as a means for the removal of water, but can be used without any particular difficulties to solve the task of removing water in the process of manufacturing vinyl or plastic containers containing charcoal. Accordingly, comparable invention 2 may be deemed as prior art denying the inventiveness of the instant Claim 3 invention, and there is no technical difficulty for ordinary technicians to combine the instant Claim 1 with the instant Claim 3 invention. Moreover, the instant Claim 3 invention is a subordinate claim of the instant Claim 1 and added composition is not different from its composition and operational effect in terms of the fact that the water portion contained in the mixture (slur) of the instant Claim 2 is removed by the intersection of the day (slurry) on which a mixture is cut.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 3 invention is denied in a case where a person with ordinary skills combines the Claim No. 1 and Claim No. 2 with comparable invention No. 1 and 2. The court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as to the determination of inventive step, etc. as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on Claim No. 2, Claim No. 4, and Claim No. 5 of this case is premised on the fact that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No.

3. Conclusion

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.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)