U.N.D. (Patent Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Cotetetex Co., Ltd. (Law Firm KGel et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The part concerning claims under paragraphs (1) through (4) among the trial decisions rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 30, 2010 concerning cases No. 835 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's patented invention

1) Name: Microphones used for microphones and cathers used in such cathers and eltains used in such cathers;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: June 14, 2007 / December 18, 2007 / (patent number omitted)

3) Claims and drawings: (a) as described in [Attachment 1] (as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the scope of claims on May 10, 2010; (b) classify the Plaintiff’s patented invention into “the instant patented invention” and “the instant corrected invention”; and (c) the claims of the instant corrected invention as stated in paragraph (1) and paragraph (1) of the instant corrected invention into “the instant Claim 1 invention” and “the instant corrected invention as described in paragraph (1) of the instant corrected invention,” respectively; and (d) the remainder of claims in the same manner.

(b) Cited inventions;

1) Invention 1

The comparable Invention 1 is an "nicker" as the "nicker" attached to the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2007-83105 (No. 1) published on April 5, 2007, which is located in the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2007-83105 (No. 1), and its main contents and drawings are as shown in attached Form 2.

2) Cited Invention 2

비교대상발명 2는 2005. 5. 12. 공표된 일본 공표특허공보 특표(특표)2005-512781호(을 제2호증)에 실린 ‘직렬식 여과를 위한 다층복합 필터엘리먼트(직렬식여과のための다층복합フィルタエレメント)’로서, 그 주요 내용 및 도면은 [별지 2] 제2항 기재와 같다.

3) Invention 3

Cited Invention 3 is “licker with which the convergence model is applied,” which is contained in the registered Patent Gazette No. 728307 (No. 3) publicly announced on June 13, 2007 (Evidence No. 728307 (Evidence No. 3 of the Patent Gazette, and the sewage and waste water disc discter with which such recreation is applied,” and its main contents and drawings are as listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 2.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On April 9, 2009, the Defendant filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Plaintiff on the instant patent invention by asserting that the patent should be invalidated without non-obviousness, as the instant patent invention is identical substantially to the contents indicated in the comparable inventions, etc., and thus, a person who has no newness or ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention by the comparable inventions, etc., and thus, the patent should be invalidated.

2) On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff continued a trial for invalidation, and filed a request for correction to correct the patented invention of this case as the corrected invention of this case (hereinafter “instant request for correction”).

3) On July 30, 2010, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rejected the instant request for correction on the grounds that the instant request for correction was not indicated in the specification of the instant patent invention, and thus is unlawful. The instant patent invention was rendered by the Defendant’s request for adjudication on the grounds that the ordinary skilled person could easily make an invention using comparable inventions, etc., and thus, the instant patent invention was rendered for lack of non-obviousness.

[Ground for recognition] Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-3

2. Issues of the instant case

1) The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asserts that the part of the instant trial decision pertaining to the first to fourth inventions of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful in conclusion.

A) The instant request for correction was made within the scope of the contents indicated in the specification and drawings of the instant patent invention, and is lawful.

B) The corrective invention Nos. 1 to 4 of the instant case is non-obviousness compared to the comparable inventions. Even if the instant request for correction is unlawful, the instant Claim Nos. 1 to 4 inventions are non-obviousness compared to the comparable inventions.

2) The defendant's assertion

The defendant argues about the plaintiff's argument and further asserts as follows.

A) The instant Claim No. 1 invention is based on the comparable Invention 1 or 2, and the instant Claim No. 2 invention is denied by the comparable Invention 2.

B) Even if the correction of this case is lawful, the correction invention of paragraphs 1 through 4 of this case does not clearly and concisely state the claims, or is not supported by the detailed description of the invention. Thus, the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is not based on the comparison invention 1 or 2 of this case. The correction invention of Claim 2 of this case is denied by the comparison invention 2 of this case.

3) Accordingly, the key issue of the instant case is whether the instant request for correction is legitimate, whether the nonobviousness or non-obviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1-4 inventions, or the instant corrective invention Nos. 1-4 inventions is denied, and whether there exist grounds for non-obviousness in the instant corrective invention.

We first examine whether the instant request for correction was legitimate, and then examine whether the instant request for correction was made in advance, and then examine whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 through (4) or the instant corrective invention was made.

3. Whether the correction of this case is legitimate

(a) the relevant regulations;

Article 133-2(1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8462 of May 17, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that where the scope of claims is reduced, the clerical error thereof is corrected, or the clerical error is corrected, or an ambiguous description is clarified under each subparagraph of Article 47(3) of the same Act, the correction of the specification or drawing(s) of the patented invention may be requested. Article 136(2) and (3) of the same Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 133-2(4) of the same Act, may be made within the scope of the original specification or drawing(s) of the patented invention, and the scope of claims shall not be substantially expanded or modified.

(b) Matters of correction request;

The request for correction of this case is: (a) the patent claim Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 are “balling macks”; (b) the patent claim Nos. 1 and 1 are “bhing macks”; and (c) the patent claim Nos. 1 and rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhing rhings; and (d) the patent claim Nos. 1 and 1 “hing rout rout rout routing routing rout rout routing rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout rout.

C. Determination

1) Whether the correction of this case is legitimate

On the other hand, the amendment of this case is limited to one of the several methods of combining "consecting" in paragraph (1) of the claim(s), and thus, it constitutes a reduction in the scope of the claim(s).

However, the claim(2) is the dependent claim(s) of paragraph(1) and contains “as to paragraph(1), 100 square meters and 200 square meters so far as the above-mentioned 10 square meters and 200 square meters are linked to the first so,” the claim(s) in accordance with the correction of the instant case results in the correction of 10 square meters and 200 square meters in using 10 square meters and 200 square meters. However, the specification or drawing(s) of the instant patent invention is not able to find the contents of the combination by using the first and second 10 square meters and the first 200 square meters together. Rather, the specification of the instant patent invention is 5 square meters in the first and second 200 square meters in the first 200 square meters in the first 200 square meters in the first 200 square meters in the first 200 square meters in the first 200 square meters in the first 200 square meters in the second 200.”

Therefore, according to the correction of this case, the correction of this case is unlawful as it violates Article 136(2) of the former Patent Act, since the contents that were not written in the specification or drawing of the patent invention of this case under paragraph (2) are added to the scope of claims.

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) The Plaintiff asserts that the correction of this case is legitimate inasmuch as it is possible to combine two methods with the subordinate concepts of the “heat rupture” as the lower concept of the “heat rupture.” However, as seen earlier, the specification of the patented invention of this case excludes the adoption of “heat rupture” by stating the problems of “heat rupture.” As such, using “heat rupture” and “the rupture rupture ruptures” are inconsistent with the specification of the patented invention of this case. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is unacceptable

B) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant request for correction is unlawful on the ground that the administrative patent judge added matters not indicated in the specification or drawings of the instant patent invention under paragraph (2) of the scope of claims in the instant trial proceeding and did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to submit a written opinion. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant request for correction is unlawful on the ground that it is unlawful

According to Article 133-2(4) and Article 136(5) of the former Patent Act, where an administrative patent judge deems that a request for correction deviates from the scope of the contents disclosed in the specification or drawing(s) of the patented invention, he/she shall notify the applicant of the reason and give him/her an opportunity to submit a written

However, according to the decision of this case, on May 19, 2010, when the trial procedure of this case was in progress, the trial examiner sent a corrective notice to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2010, stating that the purpose or technical idea is different from that of the first and second sides of the patented invention of this case, and thus, it is not recognized that the correction is in violation of Article 136(2) of the former Patent Act, since the objective or technical idea is not stated in the specification of the patented invention of this case." On June 4, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a written opinion to the effect that "the sum of the first and second parts of the first part of the patented invention of this case is included" (see e.g., the decision of this case 9 pages 1 and the second part of the judgment of this case).

Therefore, inasmuch as the administrative patent judge notifies the Plaintiff that the “heat rupture” and its purpose or technical idea are different, and thus, it is impossible to use the patent application as stated in the specification of the instant patent invention, as well as the purport of the patent application No. 2. Thus, according to the instant request for correction, the patent application No. 2 added matters not stated in the specification of the instant patent invention to the Plaintiff and provided the Plaintiff with an opportunity to submit a written opinion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

4. Whether the invention No. 1 to No. 4 of this case is inventive

As seen in the above 3. Since the instant request for correction is inappropriate as seen in the foregoing paragraph, the following is examined as to whether the instant Claim Nos. 1 to 4 prior to correction was non-obviousness compared with the cited inventions

(a)to prepare for the technical field;

(i)the technical field of each invention;

The Claims 1 to 4 of this case are related to the filtering for micro disc ctilter device in which sewage and waste water are injected, and the Lotainment applied to such ctilter device (see Evidence 2, No. 2, E. 13, respectively).

이에 비하여, 비교대상발명 1은 산업기계에서 금속편을 함유하는 절삭유(절삭유)를 여과하는 장치의 여과드럼(여과ドラム)에 부착되는 여과필터(여과フィルタ일)에 관한 것이며(을 제1호증 2면【0001】참조), 비교대상발명 2는 자동차의 엔진오일 필터, 트랜스미션오일 필터 등으로 사용되는 직렬식 여과(직렬식여과)를 위한 다층복합 필터엘리먼트(다층복합フィルタエレメント)에 관한 것이고(을 제2호증 3면【0001】참조), 비교대상발명 3은 융모형 여과막이 적용된 엘레먼트 및 이러한 엘레먼트가 적용된 오폐수 여과용 디스크 필터장치에 관한 것이다(을 제3호증 5면 ‘발명이 속하는 기술 및 그 분야의 종래기술’ 참조).

According to the above comparison, the comparable invention 3 concerns both the bomb for the use of sewage and wastewater and the bomb for the use of the bomb, which are identical to the instant Claim 1-4 inventions. However, the comparable invention 1 concerns the bomb in the field of industrial machinery, and the comparable invention 2 concerns the bomb in the field of automobile errors. Thus, the comparable invention 1-4 inventions and the technical field of the instant case cannot be deemed to be the same.

2) Whether comparable inventions 1 and 2 can serve as prior art

The term "technical field to which the invention pertains" as referred to in Article 29 (2) of the former Patent Act refers to, in principle, an industrial sector to which the invention pertains. However, if the technical composition of the cited invention in question is not a composition that can only be applied to a specific industrial sector, and if a person who has ordinary skill in the industrial sector of the patented invention in question can use it without any difficulty to solve the problem of the appropriateness of the patented invention, it may be deemed a prior art that denies the inventive step of the patented invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Hu2059, Jul. 10, 2008; 2007Hu2971, Sept. 10, 2009).

In accordance with the above criteria, as to whether comparable inventions 1 and 2 can be used as prior art that denies the inventive step of the patented invention in this case, the specification of the patented invention in this case contains the following descriptions as to the technical problem of the patented invention in this case and the solution method.

In addition, there was a problem that, as in Do 4, Do 4, the grode (44) has been easily teared when it comes to be in contact with grostous with grost, as in Do 4, and there was a problem that, if the tearing device begins once, the speed of tearing can rapidly be cut within a short time. Therefore, it is necessary to take measures to address the past problems, such as high-priced prices, and the number is weak and short so that countermeasures are needed. Accordingly, the main purpose of this invention is to provide the grost in microphone so that it can be extended so that it can be seen as easy to cut the life by altering the grost, so that it can be possible to cut the life by preventing it from being brording. The invention to achieve the above purpose is ① in the composition of an grosting system contained in wastewater, ① in the grosting system with grosting 1 to 2 in the groth and 2 in the grothoth.

According to the above specification, it can be seen that the patented invention of this case is intended to resolve the problems that have been sufficiently teared, so that the Meshh, the body eye, etc. of the patented invention of this case is to be resolved by combining two different filterings with each other.

However, the cited Invention 1 and 2 are related to both the apparatus to which the bombs apply, such as the instant Claim Nos. 1 through 4, and only can it be easily applied to the bomb technology that consumes wastewater, such as the instant Claim No. 1 and 2, and the comparable Invention 1 and 2 also have adopted the technology that constitutes two bombs in order to obtain high durability (see, e.g., Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, 2, and 4, 009, referring to the 4, 009), and adopted the technical composition that can be useful for the purpose of strengthening the durability of the bombs, which is the task to solve the instant patented invention.

Therefore, in light of the technical problems facing the instant Claim Nos. 1 to 4 and how to solve them, and the technical composition of the comparable invention Nos. 1 to 2, even though comparable invention Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be deemed the same as the instant Claim Nos. 1 to 4, but it is a related technology that can be used by a person with ordinary skills without any difficulties in resolving the technical problems of the instant Claim Nos. 1 to 4, and thus, it can be a prior art denying the inventive step of the instant Claim Nos. 1 to 4.

(b) Preparation for purposes;

The purpose of the instant Claim Nos. 1 through 4 is to provide waste water so that the water can be extended by altering the smoke so that it can be prevented from smoking easily, and by preventing tearing, so that the water can be extended (related to Claim Nos. 1 and 2 inventions of this case) and EL Entertainment (related to Claim Nos. 3 and 4 inventions of this case) applied by the pen (refer to Evidence No. 2 of this case No. 3 of this case - 19).

On the other hand, the comparable invention 1 aims to provide a string with high durabilitys (refer to the evidence 1 of No. 3 of No. 2 of No. 3 of No. 2 of the same Act), the purpose of which is to provide multi-story 2 of the comparable invention 2 of the same Act, and to provide multi-story 4 of the comparable invention 2 of the same Act (refer to the No. 2 of No. 4 of the same Act : 009). The comparable invention 3 of the same Act aims to produce el Entertainment by using a melting model and string which can be manufactured as a domestic direct manufacturing technology and to provide a device for the filtering of wastewater and the disc string by applying such eltain (refer to the technical task consisting of the invention 6 of No. 3 of the same Act).

According to the above comparison, the purpose of the Claim 1-4 invention in this case, which seeks to extend the lifespan by preventing the tear easily tearing, does not differ from the purpose of the Claim 1-2 in comparison with the invention 1-2, which tried to improve the durability of the pen. However, the same purpose is not found in the comparable invention 3.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that comparable invention 1 is aimed at ensuring that the net composition can be achieved from the power that is vertically formed, and that the Plaintiff does not have the purpose of preventing the tear of fine fibers by combining two fibers, such as the first-fourth inventions in this case, with the aim of preventing the tear of fine fibers.

However, the cited invention 1 also contains the purpose of preventing tearing that may occur due to the force that can occur in various directions, as well as the inner structure from the force that is vertically terminated (see, e.g., evidence 1, 3, 010). The plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the Claim 1-4 inventions of this case do not have any peculiar nature for the purpose of putting them into comparable inventions 1 and 2, and there is no peculiar nature for the purpose of putting them into comparable inventions 3.

(c) Preparation for composition;

1) Claim 1 invention of this case

A) Analysis of components

The Claim 1 invention of this case is about a brupt with 2 influent strings, which are composed of a brush which consumes of foreign substances contained in wastewater (hereinafter referred to as “former brush composition”), and a brupted brushing with rhing and rhyming strings (hereinafter referred to as “Composition 1-1”), which is characterized by the characteristics of the bruc string rhing system (hereinafter referred to as “Composition 1-2”), and is related to a brush racking system for microphone diskss (hereinafter referred to as “Composition 1-2”).

B) Preparation for the Composition and Composition 1-2

The composition and composition 1-2 of the premise premise is “a micro-line disc filterer in which foreign substance contained in wastewater is mixed.” This is corresponding to “a melting model click click click click clclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclcl

C) Preparation for Composition 1-1

Composition 1-1 is a technical feature of “consecting with air-conditioning with ruptures of rh, rh, and rhythrh in comparison with the first rupture of the fast rupture,” in organizing a rupture.

This is in response to the “marnet(15) of comparable inventions 1, which consists of a bruptter by cutting off and pushing off the horizontal net(16) with heavy snows (15) and the upper brupt(16),” which consists of a bruptter (see evidence 1, e.g., evidence 1, 5-11).

The two compositions are not different in that they are tightly tightly tightly tightly tightly tightly tightly tightly, compared to the first tone, and the second tone (the second tone) with the rhymym (the second tone) with the rhymbly tightly tightly tightly tightly tightly tightly, but there is no difference in that the rhym (the second tone) with the rhym (the second tone) with the rhym (the rhym) with the rhym (the rhym) with the rhym (the rhym) with the rhym (the rhym

However, if a person is an ordinary technician, he/she has selected an appropriate method of contact in consideration of the nature of absence, shape, size, and the degree of necessary contact agreement when combining two absences. If a technician of comparable invention 1 uses a technician of comparable invention 1 as a response component of comparable invention 3 to a secondary structure, it seems that it would be inappropriate for the comparison of the breath of the fiber of the fiber in light of the fact that the breath of comparable invention 3 is a fiber of the melted Invention 3, considering the fact that the breath of comparable invention 3 is a fiber of the convergence model, it would not be appropriate for the comparison of the breath of the fiber in light of the fact that the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the 2014th of the 2.

Therefore, 1-1 is a component that can easily be derived by combining widely known and commonly used technologies with regard to response composition of comparable inventions 1.

2) Paragraph 2 of this case

The Claim 2 invention of this case is a subordinate claim to the Claim 1 invention of this case, and the first studio and second studio are “component with the second studios” (hereinafter “Composition 2”). The technical characteristics of the invention of this case are technical features.

- - Section 2 is corresponding to the "the 2nd pen floor is melted by the ultra-wave energy" (No. 2 evidence 2, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 10, No. 10, No. 10) of the comparable invention 2, and there is no difference in the composition since the two parts are all combined with the 2nd pen.

3) Claim 3 invention of this case

The instant Claim 3 invention is a subordinate claim to the instant Claim 1 or Claim 2, and “the external shape is in the shape of a bridge, and the center is covered by the opening part of the framework of the wooden material in which it is opened by combining it with the string on the side of the framework of the frame, and the framework of the filtering frame covers the opening part of the margin of the string, and the string of the margin of the string frame combines a water-tight gas pocket (sket) and constitutes an el Entertainment (hereinafter “Composition 3”).

- - - Section 3 is in response to comparable inventions 3's "Ltaintains which combines the melting of a type C water appliance at the edge of a bridge frame by having a melting a melting model string on the top of the mold of metal materials with the central openings, cover the openings of presses, and combines a type C water appliance at the edge of a bridge frame (as evidence 3 No. 6 of the evidence No. 2, 3, 6th, and 16.5 of the size of invention)."

There is no difference in both composition in that there is no difference in that the metal materials in the shape of a bridge covering the opening of the opening is combined with learning a water-tight gas tag on the framework of the framework of the string, which covers the opening of the opening, and that there is no difference in that there is a combination of water-tight gas diskettes.

4) Claim 4 invention of this case

The Claim 4 invention of this case is a technical feature of "the shape of the parallel of the invention of Claim 1 or Claim 2 of this case is in the shape of a bridge, and the center is in contact with the side of the framework of the string of the metal materials opened, covers the opening of the framework of the string frame, cover the opening of the string frame, and cover the string of the framework of the string frame with the string of the string frame, and form the elntain by attaching the corresponding gas pocket (hereinafter referred to as "Composition 4").

- Composition 4 is in response to comparable invention 3's "teretains that combines melting a melting model to the frameworks of metal materials with the central openings and covers the openings of presses by combining it with a type C-type gaset at the edge of a bridge frame (as evidence 3 No. 6 of the No. 2, 3, 6th, and 16.5 of the No. 16.).

There is no difference in both compositions in that it combines a metal plate in the shape of a bridge that covers the opening of the opening and a water-tight gas tag on the framework of the framework of the string. However, while the composition 4 combines a bring frame and a water-tight gas pocket, it is different in that comparable invention 3 combines a water-tight gas pocket in the framework of the bring frame.

However, it is merely an widely known and widely used art to combine two absences. Composition 4 does not have any technical difficulty in deriving the combination of widely known and used art with regard to the response composition of comparable invention 3.

(v) whether the results of preparation are complicated or not;

Ultimately, each composition of the instant Claim 1-4 invention is a component that started in the comparable inventions, or that can easily be derived by a person having ordinary skill from responding to the comparable inventions and widely known art. Moreover, the basic composition of the instant Claim 1-4 invention, such as disc peners, LAsttains, domintains, domination presses, and manual gas diskettes, etc., has been initiated in the comparable inventions 3 as it is. Moreover, even if the response composition or well-known art of the comparable inventions 1 and 2 is applied to the corresponding composition of the comparable inventions 3, structural changes may not occur, and thus, it cannot be said that there is any particular technical difficulty in combining them.

(d) preparation for effects;

1) The instant Claim Nos. 1 to 4 invention can strengthen the durability by combining the grouts of Chapter II with each other, and even if the tear is generated in part, it is possible to suppress the process of tearing by shot, and thus, it is effective to extend the lifespan of the grouts (see Evidence 2 to 4, e.g., Evidence 41).

The aforementioned effect of the instant Claim Nos. 1 through 4 can be achieved by combining with other joints of two strings with strings, which can be achieved by combining with other joints, and the effect of the instant Claim Nos. 1 through 4, as seen in the instant Claim Nos. 1(c)(C). As seen in the instant Claim Nos. 1 and 1(c), it can be said that the durability of the interior structure of the instant Claim Nos. 1 through 1 to 2 is enhanced by fasting the string of the two-story structure by cutting off the eyes with other joints (see evidence No. 1 No. 3, 010-1 to 2). As such, the strengthening of the durability of the interior structure and the extension of life expectancy of the instant Claim No.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the comparable invention 1 is described as being closely adhered to two metal networks, but the metal net itself cannot be attached to the small, and that the two metal network is merely a second-story structure with an enclosed two metal network, so the comparable invention 1 cannot have a structure with two filterings, such as the instant No. 1 to 4, and the comparable invention 1 cannot have an effect of strengthening the durability of the breath by preventing the breath from spreading easily.

However, according to the evidence Eul evidence Nos. 5, the term "satisfying" is a combination method that combines the powder powder in an appropriate form so that they can be satisfyed with each other by cutting the powder powder, and then is used for metal products generally. The specification of the comparable invention 1 also includes "in the case of acquiring the second floor structure, by satisfying it by satisfying it (see evidence No. 1, 3, 0010)" (see, e.g., evidence No. 1, No. 3, 0010). Thus, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's assertion that the flat net of comparable invention 1 can not have the same effect as the invention of this case on the ground that the flat net of comparable invention 1 is a metal material or satisfying it.

2) The Plaintiff asserts that comparable invention 1 only has the durability from the power to be laid vertically to the network and vertical, and that it does not have the effect of preventing the tear of fine fibers by combining two fibers, such as the invention of paragraphs 1 to 4 of this case.

However, the comparisond Invention 1 also contains a two-story structure strings by closely sticking off the string of the two-storys, and thus, the employment of such a professional engineer can only have the effect of preventing tear that may occur due to force that might occur from the vertical separation, as well as from the power that takes on various directions. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is not acceptable.

E. Sub-committee

As seen above, the instant Claim 1-4 invention is identical or closely related to the technical field with the cited inventions, and its purpose is not peculiar compared to the cited inventions 1-2. The composition of the instant Claim 1-4 invention can easily be derived from the comparison of the cited inventions 3, or from the comparison of the cited inventions 1-2. Moreover, there is no particular technical difficulty in combining the inventions or from the comparison of the comparable inventions 1-2, and its effect cannot be seen as remarkably superior to the comparison of the cited inventions. Thus, the nonobviousness is denied.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the correction of this case is inappropriate, and the invention of Nos. 1 through 4 of this case is denied by comparable inventions, and its patent should be invalidated. Accordingly, the trial decision of this case is legitimate with this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)