(영문) 서울행정법원 2012.6.22. 선고 2011구합44471 판결

1. The Defendant’s decision to dismiss unfair international trade practices rendered by the Decision No. 2011-15, Sept. 21, 2011, shall be revoked. 2. Of the litigation costs, the part pertaining to participation by the Intervenor is borne by the Defendant, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s patent application filed a patent application with the Korean Intellectual Property Office on March 27, 1996 and completed registration on March 13, 200 (hereinafter “patent number No. 258609,”) and completed the patent registration on March 13, 200 (hereinafter “patent number No. 258609,”) and developed a luminous drum, installed a knife, installed a knife and an knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife in which knife knife knife is used.

B. Details and scope of the patent of this case

(1) The patent of this case is about the "electronic photographic image formation device", such as 'erode, erode, erode, main assembly body, erode, luminous forum, and roller, which is used to form images in a video recording medium using an electronic photographic image image type (erograph type), such as 's electric power transmission equipment' between the main body, erode, photode, and roller (eromoer), 's electric power transmission equipment', including the aforesaid erode, installed in a video recording device, 's frode, shot beam, etc., installed with the above erode type, and the rash beam beamer with the above erode.

The luminous for the luminousline consisting of the rash beam source equipment is Daejeon (-) : (i) the luminous system (laeropal) by receiving printed video information from computers, etc.; and (ii) according to the printed image information, the part receiving the rash light line among the rash drums is removed from the rashline; (iii) the part on which the rash light line was received from the rash; and (iv) the part on which the rash line was not received from the rash line is kept under the existing subparagraph (-). Since then, when the rash source by the rasher supplies the rash to the raddrum from the earth, the earth is buried only in the part on which the nick line was removed; and (iv) the image phenomenoned by the lap is set up in the paper by attaching the lap to the lap with the lap of the main body and the lap of the lap; and (v) after being set up in the paper by using the cal.

(2) The purpose of the patent of this case is to improve the quality of the revolving system by improving the revolving system, namely, when the former power is delivered, by making the revolving system coincide in the event of a video formation, by improving the direction-setting for the revolving system, and by transmitting accurate power to the former. In other words, when the former power is not delivered, it would improve the operation of the revolving system by facilitating the combined relationship for the delivery of the former power and separating the knife system.

(3) 이 사건 특허는 위와 같은 목적을 달성하기 위하여, 종래기술이 화상형성장치의 주 조립체 기어의 측면에 설치된 핀과 감광드럼의 측면에 형성된 요(凹)홈을 이용한 편 고정방식이나, 주 조립체와 감광드럼 양쪽의 헬리컬 기어(helical gear, 원통형 기어의 한 종류로서 톱니 줄기가 비스듬하게 경사져 있는 기어)를 이용한 기어 결합방식을 사용하여 온 데서 탈피하여, 화상 형성시 및 화상 비형성시 각각의 시점에서 요구되는 조건을 모두 만족하도록 감광드럼과 주 조립체간의 결합관계를 시점별로 구분하였다. 즉, 화상 형성시에는 동일하게 비틀린 형상을 한 감광드럼의 한쪽 끝 돌출부와 이에 대응하는 화상형성장치의 주 조립체 쪽 구멍을 축방향으로 끼워 결합하는 방식을 채택하여(별지 1 '이 사건 특허발명'의 나. 주요도면 중 제12도 참조), 구동력 전달시주 조립체와 감광드럼이 회전 중심축이 일치된 상태에서 일체로 회전하게 함으로써 종래 구동력 전달방식이 갖고 있던 단속적 구동 내지 회전속도 불균일의 문제점을 개선하여 회전정확도를 향상시키고, 회전축에 해당하는 주 조립체의 회전구동력으로 생기는 주 조립체 방향의 추력에 따라 회전 중인 감광드럼이 주 조립체 쪽으로 당겨지면서 축방향 위치가 안정적으로 고정되게 함으로써 고품질의 인쇄 화상을 얻을 수 있게 하며, 화상 비형성시에는 감광드럼의 돌출된 모서리가 주 조립체의 구멍의 안쪽 표면에 구속되지 않아 구멍을 돌출부 방향으로 전진시키기만 하면 돌출부가 들어가고 반대로 돌출부 반대방향으로 당기기만 하면 돌출부가 빠지게 함으로써 감광드럼의 분리작동성을 개선하였다.

(3) The main part of the registered claims of the instant patent, which is up to seventy (70) in the production of the product using the instant patent, (hereinafter referred to as “instant patent claims”) is as indicated in the claim(a) and image of the instant patent invention. The Plaintiff’s application for remedy for unfair trade practices by the Plaintiff is as indicated in the claim(s).

On May 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for remedy pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Act on the Investigation of Unfair International Trade Practices and Remedy against Injury to Industry (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the Defendant’s Intervenors for the suspension of the manufacture and export purposes of the goods infringing on intellectual property rights, etc. prohibited under Article 4(1)1(b) of the Act on the Investigation of Unfair International Trade Practices and Remedy against Injury to Industry (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), which were manufactured for export purposes.

D. The defendant's investigation and determination of unfair international trade practices

(1) Based on Article 4 of the Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on June 1, 2010, the Defendant decided to commence the investigation of unfair international trade practices with respect to the Defendant’s Intervenors, based on the investigation period from January 1, 2007 to May 31, 2010, and November 30 of the same year as the time limit for the determination.

(2) On November 5, 2010, the Defendant requested a patent attorney recommended by the Korea Patent Attorneys Association on November 5, 2010 to appraise whether the subject matter of the patent in question falls under the scope of the patent in this case and whether the subject matter of the patent in question produced by the Defendant’s Intervenors falls under the scope of the patent in this case. On December 15, 201 of the same year, the Defendant held a technical briefing session while the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenors attended, and made a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application on September 21, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and notified the Plaintiff of the result.

(3) The gist of the instant disposition is as follows.

(A) The scope of protection of a patented invention shall, in principle, be determined only by the descriptions described in the scope of claims where the technical scope is apparent. However, even if the description alone is unable to identify or identify the technical composition of the patented invention, if the technical scope cannot be determined, it may be supplemented by other descriptions in the specification. In such a case, the extension of the scope of claims shall not be permitted by other descriptions in the specification. In a case where the technical scope is apparent only by the descriptions in the scope of claims, the limitation of the scope of claims shall not be interpreted

(B) Paragraph 25 of the patent refers to the protruding part of the protruding part that is the upper and lower side of the protruding part, with the focus on the revolving axis, so long as it is evident only by the description of the claim, it cannot be interpreted as a limited interpretation on the basis of the detailed description of the invention, etc. Even when considering the detailed description, drawings, etc. of the invention, the "protruding part" of the invention in the same paragraph cannot be interpreted as a "protruding part" as alleged by the Plaintiff, unless the combined relation between the protruding part and the point within the protruding part is stated in the claim.

(C) Accordingly, a patent No. 25 cannot be deemed new because the technical composition partially coincide with the cited invention 1, and the purpose and operational effect of the invention cannot be recognized as having special differences.

(D) In addition, the non-protruding part of the three-dimensional explos shape of the patent of paragraph 26 is different in that the shape of the non-protruding part having the non-protruding part having the non-contesting part having the non-contesting part having the two-dimensional projecting part of the patent of paragraph 25 is limited in detail. However, there is no particular difference in the operating effect, and thus, it can be easily claimed by the cited invention 1 and 2.

(E) Therefore, the inventive step of the patent of paragraph 26 is denied, and the patent of paragraphs 27 through 32 cannot be denied, compared to the cited inventions 1 and 2, but there is no inventive step because a person with ordinary skill can easily make an invention by comparable inventions 1 and 2.

(F) Ultimately, since the patent under paragraphs (25) through (32) is obviously invalid, the Plaintiff’s exercise of patent rights cannot be permitted as it constitutes abuse of rights, and the act of manufacturing domestically for the purpose of export or export of the goods subject to the export by the Defendant’s Intervenor does not constitute unfair trade practices under Article 4(1)1 of the Act.

(4) In the instant disposition, the outlines of the inventions subject to comparison are as follows.

(A) Cited Invention 1: The invention is an invention related to the 1st 2nd 63-85 of Japan’s Patent Gazette, which is published on January 14, 1988, such as the 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 6th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 3th 2nd 3

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 5-1 through 5, Gap evidence 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) One of the purposes of the instant patent is to improve the redivity of the luminous forum by fundamentally resolving the redivity problem, and to develop a method that can easily separate the luminous forum from its main body and improve its divity by facilitating its separation. The core professional engineer of the instant patent is to maintain the combined state of detention in the event of video formation so that high-quality printing pictures can be obtained by delivering stable power. However, in the event of non-condembation, the separation divity of the knife can be improved by removing detention and easily separating the combined state.

(2) Accordingly, interpreting paragraph 25 of this case’s patent, “unexplosive part” means a part of 200 square meters from the inner surface of the hole at the time of the formation of the film so that the patent of this case is a non-explosive part of 200,000 square meters from the inner surface of the hole, and the non-explosive part of 200,000, with an unexplosive part of the unexplosive part, has been conveyed with power from the hole, and the extent of the unexplosive part can be easily combined with protruding part and hole in the direction of the axis. However, the term “explosive part” means a part of the claim 2 of this case’s explosive part, which is an explosive part of this case’s explosive part to the extent that it can be easily combined with the non-explosive part of the patented invention, and thus, it means a part of the non-expluging part of the patent right to the extent of the expling part.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached 5 is as shown in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

(1) In principle, the Defendant’s judicial review of the Defendant’s determination of unfair trade practices is based on available data within a limited period of one month from the date of the determination of commencement of an investigation (Article 9(1) of the Act). It does not necessarily mean that the Defendant has the right to participate in the investigation of evidence (Article 36 of the Act and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act), and that corrective measures or penalty surcharges should be imposed on the Defendant’s determination of unfair trade practices (Article 10(1) and Article 11(1) of the Act). The protection of patent holders, etc. against the infringer through export and import is based on the private remedy method directly against the infringer, such as patent infringement action and patent infringement provisional disposition. Even if the Defendant rendered a determination that unfair trade practices do not constitute unfair trade practices, it does not constitute infringement of patent rights itself, but merely does not constitute unfair trade practices in the process recognized by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s establishment of the Defendant’s collective trade practice within the scope of the scope of unfair trade practice under Article 9(1).

(2) Legal principles on interpretation of claims

Inasmuch as the scope of protection of a patented invention is a principle to define the matters indicated in the scope of claims, it shall not be interpreted by a different description in the scope of claims. However, in cases where the technical composition of the patented invention is not known or the technical scope cannot be determined solely by the description, the scope of claims may be supplemented by another description. However, even in such cases, it is not permissible to expand the scope of claims pursuant to another description. In a case where the technical scope is apparent only by the description of claims, the scope of claims cannot be limited by another description in the scope of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Hu107, Jul. 14, 201; 2010Hu2605, Mar. 29, 2012). However, the scope of claims is most difficult to properly interpret the scope of claims based on a different description in the scope of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Hu2605, Mar. 20, 2012).

In addition, the term used in the specification of a patent shall be used in a common sense that it is owned, and the term shall be used in a consistent manner through the entire specification, and in cases where it is intended to use it in a specific sense, it shall be permitted to define and use it so that it is possible to interpret it as defined in the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu486, Sept. 29, 2005). However, insofar as the term is not defined in the specification as defined in the specification, it shall be interpreted in a consistent manner through the entire specification in accordance with the meaning of the term generally recognizable to a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da77350, 77367, Feb. 28, 2008).

(3) The key issue of whether the patent under paragraph (25) is new, inventive step or not is whether the patent under paragraph (25) falls under “a protruding protruding out with the number of dunes of the patent under paragraph (25).” Accordingly, the newness and inventive step of the patent under paragraph (25) is displayed.

For this reason, the plaintiff should interpret the meaning on the basis of the detailed description of the invention in the interpretation of the patent claim under paragraph 25, and on the contrary, the defendant and the defendant's supplementary intervenors should not limit the meaning on the basis of the detailed description of the invention, as they can clearly understand the technical composition only by the description of the claim itself. In the below, in various aspects, such as the technical field, purpose, composition, effect of action, etc., it should be determined whether the patent under paragraph 25 is novel and inventive step in preparation for the patent under paragraph 25 and paragraph

(A) Technical field and purpose 25 patents have technical characteristics in the composition of luminous fordrums among "processing set, electronic photograph-making apparatus, lack of old power delivery apparatus, and electronic photograph drums," and comparable inventions 1 relate to a chemical consultation body operation that determines the location of a chemical (which is substantially the same component as the "dial fordial fordiv" of the instant patent invention) in video-making apparatus, such as an electronic photo reproductioner, electronic photographer, and facsimile transmission apparatus, and thus both inventions are identical in its technical field in that they are technology related to the dial fordial fordial fordiv.

In addition, the patent of paragraph 25 has the composition of ‘unfreshing hole' with the unfreshing side with the unfreshing side with the unfreshing part and the unfreshing part combined with the hole as seen earlier, and as such, it is intended to improve the probability of revolving an electronic photo drums and to improve the operational feasibility of the freshing part by separating the fresh from the main assembly when the power of the Gu is not delivered, and the comparable invention 1 also aims to improve the precision of the revolving area and to easily remove the dreprum from the main body, which is the same as the patent of paragraph 25.

(b) Preparation for composition and action effects;

1) The electronic photograph-making device of 25 (hereinafter referred to as the "electric photo-making device") for the purpose of forming images on the recording material of the elements of the patent is equipped with a studio, an electric photograph-making device of the studio, a studio, a studio that is powered by the stude, and a studio that is paid in its central part, a non-consoring hole on the non-consoring part of the non-consoring part of the cross-consor (hereinafter referred to as the "consorization 1"), and an electronic photograph dipture of the 25 (hereinafter referred to as the "consorture 1"), a studio studio with a stude with a studio and a studre with a studre insor, and a non-consorized part of the above 'consorized part' with a non-consor (hereinafter referred to as the "consorized part 2).

On the other hand, the defendant's supplementary intervenor asserts that the patent of paragraph 25 is an invention related to the electronic luminous drum, and since the above premise and 1, 3 merely correspond to the premise or situation element that explained the power transmission environment, it cannot be viewed as an element of invention. However, Article 42 (4) 3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197 of Jan. 3, 2007, Article 7 of the above amended Act applies to the patent of this case filed before its enforcement, and Article 42 (4) 3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7 of the above amended Act) requires that "the patent of this case shall be written only with the elements which are not indispensable for the composition of the invention" of the patent claim. Accordingly, the defendant's supplementary intervenor's supplementary intervenor's claim cannot be asserted as including the elements which were not stated at the time of patent after the patent for the invention was not stated in all the elements necessary for the composition of the invention, all of the elements stated in the claim should be understood as essential, and it cannot be viewed as an essential element of the defendant's.

In addition, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the Plaintiff’s claim should not be permitted to be inconsistent with the court’s determination regarding the interpretation of the claim in the previous lawsuit, but the interpretation of the claim made in the previous lawsuit whose issues are not identical shall not be uniformly applied in this case.

2) The technical meaning of 'Coper', 'brein', 'brein' as described in paragraph 25 patent.

We examine the technical meaning of 'Copon', 'blin', 'blin', and 'blin', in consideration of the purpose, components, etc. of the 25 patent.

A) The technical meaning of "Coper"

Paragraph 25. The phrase "cop" as stated in the detailed description of the patent of this case is not mentioned only in the claims, but also in the detailed description of the patent of this case, so long as the expression "cop" with the same meaning as "cop" or "cop" is mentioned in the detailed description of the patent of this case, it is difficult to view that the word "cop" does not be mentioned uniformly through the overall description. Therefore, the characteristic and technical meaning of the shape of "cop" should be interpreted as "cop" in consideration of the detailed description and drawings of the patent of this case. According to the detailed description of the patent of this case, the part "cop" in the inner part of the cross-section or the part "protruding from the inner part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the part of the protruding or the part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part.

B) The technical meaning of the ‘unreshing part’ and ‘unreshing part’ in the unreshing hole.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the phrase “unprotruding hole” as referred to in the former part of the 2013-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-4

3) Technical meaning of “Bag” listed in comparable inventions 1

Defendant Intervenor asserts that the patent of paragraph 25 is new because the patent is identical to the non-recept and protruding part with a non-concing part of the number of sub-sections attached to the patent of paragraph 25 on the premise that the 3rd line of comparable invention 1 is a blick line, and thus, the patent of paragraph 25 is not denied. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the shape, diameter, spitch, and ld, etc. of the supplementary invention 1 are standardized, and the specific structure and type are the same as the description and image of attached Table 4, and it is difficult to conclude that the 3rd line and blick line of comparable invention 1 are different from the blick line of comparable invention 1 without disclosing the function of the blick line of the blick line of the blick line of the blick line of the blick line of the blick line of the blick line of the 3rd line of the blive invention.

4) Compared section 1 of the premise and comparable invention 1 is related to “the luminous drum for an electronic photographic recording device to form images on the recorded material”. They correspond to comparable invention 1’s chemical operation device. They do not have a substantial difference in that both are specified in the luminous drum technology consisting of a video recording device.

5) Comparison between 1 and 2 with comparable inventions 1

1) Composition 1 is made with respect to the non-permanent hole in the central part of the dynamics not capable of generating power from this base [10 mix 1)] of the 1strings [1strings (flrings, 112a)) of the comparable invention 1] of the vegetable joints (12b) of the vegetable joints (12b) of the vegetables of the 1strings (1) of the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables of the 1strings (11b) of the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables and the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables of the 1strings of the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables of the vegetables of the 1 second.

However, there is a fundamental difference between 1 and 2's multiple 'copacker' in the crosssection and the straight lines', on the other hand, in the crosssection of comparable invention 1, it is not possible to find any such a part in the crosssection of comparable invention 1, and further 2 is a structure that contacts 'the inside side and the 'face of the mouth of the mouth of the mouth of the Maliuri,' or the structure that contacts 'the inside side of the mouth of the Malililiuri,' and 'the surface of the water and the 'the surface of the Malina' of the comparable invention 1.

Ultimately, it is difficult to view that an ordinary technician can easily derive from the comparable invention 1, because the shape and the mutually organic structure of the hole 1 and 2 are different from the bath of the comparable invention 1, and the mutual organic structure of the comparable invention 1 is not initiated or outlined in the comparable invention 1.

6) Comparison between Composition 3 and Invention 1

A) Composition 3 is related to the use of powered power, which combines the non-freshing part into the non-freshing hole and revolving an electronic photo luminous drum when installed in the main assembly of the luminous forum, and the use of the broadband 1 of the comparable Invention 1 is capable of revolving both directions of the tamper dynamic direction (hereinafter referred to as the "fresh") and his revolving the revolving part of the revolving the revolving of the tamper (11a, 111b) and his revolving the revolving. Bresh (11a, 111b) is relatively concluded when the tamper (100) makes the tamper’s revolving in the direction of output of the tamper (100). In other words, each response structure corresponds to the elements of the 3 protruding hole [the 100 protruding part is combined with the tamping part of the non-exclusive invention or the 1111Na111(a) perforthm].

However, the structure installed in the main prefabricated of the 3th luminous divers of the comparable invention is that the offline part of the 1studio of the luminous divers is cut off by the direction of the main assembly in the vertical direction of the axis, and is somewhat different from the studios formed in the central part of the divers of the diversium, and the structure is installed in a vertical direction without any need for sticking. On the other hand, it is difficult to see that the divers and divers of the 3th divers of the combined inventions are inserted through the space of the main board and the divers of the divers of the combined inventions and the divers of the combined inventions in the direction of the divers of the divers of the combined inventions. According to the foregoing, it is difficult to see that the divers of the combined inventions in the direction of the divers of the front part of the divers of the combined inventions.

In addition, Nos. 3 is a component of delivering the Gu power by having the multiple fluoral wells of the non-fluoring part of the non-fluoring part in a non-fluoring part in contact with the inside side of the fluoring hole. On the other hand, it is difficult to view that a person with ordinary skills can easily derive the 3-powered power transmission structure composed of comparable inventions 1, as it is a component delivered by the fludial power contact with the fludial part of the fludial unit after combining the bluorians and cancers of comparable inventions 1.

B) As to this, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor asserts that, if the brid angle of the cited invention 1, the combination structure of the non-fluoring part of the patent of paragraph 25 and the non-fluoring part of the non-fluoring part of the patent of paragraph 25 is identical to the structure of the non-fluoring part of the non-fluoring part of the patent of paragraph 25. However, even if the bluor angle of the comparable invention 1, it is necessary to have a bluoring power to go on the bluorc for the combination of cancers and water and its cancellation is necessary to be covered by a grass before the calendar. However, the Defendant Intervenor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

In addition, the supplementary intervenor of the defendant clearly stated in the specification of the Japanese patent filed by the plaintiff that "unprotruding protruding part with the same power delivery structure as that of the patent of this case" and "unprotruding part with a multi-puging part with a multi-puging part with the same power type as that of the patent of this case" can be replaced by "Cynasium" and "Cynasium" respectively. At the time of the application of the patent of this case, the intervenor of the defendant asserted that at the time of the application of the patent of this case, the inventor of the patent of this case was aware that he had satisfied the elements of "non-packing part" and "Coption" as stated in the specification and examination process of the patent of this case. However, in interpreting the claims of the patent of this case, it cannot be interpreted differently from the interpretation of the above internal evidence based on external evidence such as the specification of other inventions filed after the patent application, and it is difficult to conclude that the intervenor of this case had the same effect as before and after the patent application of this case as its previous specification and model.

(C) A small-paid 25 patent can easily be derived from comparable inventions 1, because its elements are not initiated or described in comparable inventions 1. In light of its function effects, it is difficult to see that a person with ordinary skill can easily derive it from comparable inventions 1. In light of its function effects, its originality and inventive step can be recognized.

D. As to the non-obviousness of Paragraph 26 of the patent

(i)to prepare for technology and objectives;

The purpose of Article 26 of the Patent Act is to improve the revolving of an electronic photographic drum and to facilitate the assembly of a drum, which is installed in the central axis of drums, with a drum, protruding part, and a main assembly hole equipped with a string hole being powered by a motherter, to improve the revolving of an electronic photo drums, to ensure that the former power is clearly delivered from main assembly to an electronic photo drum, and to facilitate the drums that constitute a drum from the main assembly. Invention 1 also aims to improve the revolving of an electronic photo drum and to facilitate the assembly of a drum, which is composed of a drum for the purpose of cutting off from the main assembly. Invention 2 is also to ensure that a drum for the purpose of cutting off from the main body, even if the drum for the purpose of improving the revolving probability of an electronic photo drum and the drum for the purpose of cutting off from the main body.

Therefore, the patent of paragraph 26 is substantially identical to the patent of comparable invention 1 in that it is intended to improve the wheel probability and conveniently remove the luminous forum, and to convey the power to the roller through the luminous drum from the main assembly.

(2) Preparation for composition

The composition of paragraph 26 of the patent is composed of a main assembly forming a 's hole' in the elements of the patent of paragraph 25 above, and the power is delivered to the drum of the luminous drum, and the drum is added to the elements of turning the roller in line with the motive of the roller. In the end, the composition of paragraph 25 of the patent was added to the composition of paragraph 25 of the patent. Meanwhile, the composition of the cited invention 2 is composed of a 'luminous drums where the prize engine is installed on the side and a drum in which the width is received, and the phenomenon to supply the drums to the drum is reduced so that it is possible to revolving.

감광드럼의 구동기 어수단은 현상구동기어를 회전시키기 위한 힘이 작용하고, 양 기어의 피치 원접선으로부터 압력각만큼 기울어진 방향으로, 현상구동기어와 현상롤러를 회전시키려고 하는 운동량이 발생하여, 현상구동기어와 현상롤러가 감광드럼 쪽에 부착됨으로써, 감광드럼에서 현상롤러가 떨어져 화상이 하얗게 되는 문제점이 해결된다'는 것인데, 비교대상발명 1이 모터 측의 암나사와 수나사가 모터에 의해 체결되는 구성임은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 제26항 특허는 결합구조 면에서 비교대상발명 1과 다르고, 기어들의 유기적 연결이 비교대상발명 2의 기어 배치와 상이하여 그 구동력의 전달구조 측면에서도 비교대상발명 2와 현저한 차이를 보이므로, 통상의 기술자가 비교대상발명 1, 2로부터 제26항 특허의 구성을 용이하게 도출할 수 있다고 보기 어렵다.

(iii)Preparation for operational effects;

Paragraph 26 of Article 26 of the Patent Act is as follows: (a) the effect of enhancing the accuracy of revolving through mutual connection between the schilling hole, the unscriptive part, and the main assembly body, drums, drums, and drums; (b) the effect of effectively transmitting Gu power; and (c) the effect of facilitating the sticking of the luminous forum is as follows; (d) even if combining the comparable invention 1 and 2, the same effect cannot be achieved; (b) As such, the patent paragraph 26 of the Patent Act is significantly different from the comparable invention 1 and 2 in terms of operating effects.

(4) In terms of composition and operating effect, a small settlement 26 patent shows significant differences from comparable inventions 1, 2, and it appears that the ordinary technician could not easily derive from comparable inventions 1, 2, and the nonobviousness of the patent is recognized.

E. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

As seen above, the patent Nos. 25 and 26 cannot be deemed to have lack of originality or inventive step in comparison with the cited invention No. 1 and 2, and thus, it still remains valid. However, the defendant erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the claims, and the remaining patent Nos. 25 and 26, which caused the lack of newness or inventive step, and thereby led to the disposition in this case on the premise that the Patent Tribunal, which is a specialized examiner prior to the disposition in this case, rendered a decision on the premise that the patent is valid prior to the disposition in this case, should have taken more careful measures in consideration of the result of the decision in accordance with the purport of Article 4(4) of the Enforcement Decree. Thus, the defendant issued the disposition in this case on the ground of the erroneous interpretation, and the defendant's disposition in this case cannot be deemed to have remarkably deviates or abused its discretionary power, taking into account the scope of discretion.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the burden of litigation costs is judged as ordered by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.