Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Lee U.S. Patent & Patent Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff Intervenor’s Intervenor (Patent Attorney Jeong Sung-sung, Counsel for plaintiff’s intervenor)

Defendant corporation

May 28, 2008

1. The part concerning claims 1 through 4, 7, 9, and 16 of the trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 22, 2006 regarding the case No. 2005Dang60 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The 40% of the costs of the lawsuit, including the costs incurred by participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff, and 60% of the costs by the Defendant, respectively.

The part concerning claims 1 through 4, 7 through 9, 14, and 16 of the Patent Tribunal's decision on September 22, 2006, which was rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2005Ra60 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. Registered invention of this case

(i)Name of invention: Method of communication control between the equipment on the network and the device for such control;

Sheet Filing date/registration date/registration number: September 19, 2003/ May 12, 2004/432675

【Patent Claim】

Claim 1: Claim 1: A method of controlling communications among the equipment on a specific network (hereinafter “Composition 1-1”; a method of controlling communications among the equipment on the network (hereinafter “instant Claim 1-2”) using a communication control device located on the same level as the equipment on the network (hereinafter “Composition 1-2”); and a method of controlling communications among the equipment on the network (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) by providing data links with a data link, in which the said blocking equipment was operated, so as to enable the said blocking equipment to be transmitted to abnormal clicks, so that the said blocking equipment is transmitted to abnormal clicks, thereby blocking communications among the above blocking equipment (hereinafter “Composition 1-3”).

Claim 2: In paragraph 1, for the equipment in a situation of communication blocking, even though it is not subject to communication blocking, a communication control method with the characteristics of transmitting a device in a situation of communication blocking to the equipment in a situation of communication blocking by transmitting the device in a normal condition of communication control to the equipment in question (hereinafter “instant Claim 2 invention”).

Claim 3: In paragraph 1, in order to block communication between the above installations subject to blocking, a communication control method (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 3 invention”) with a characteristic of setting the above-mentioned communication control equipment data link to the above-mentioned communication control equipment data link or the third data link to the above-mentioned data link rather than the above control equipment (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 3 invention”).

Claim 4: In paragraph 1, in the event there is a conflict between the IP hosts of equipment newly connected to the network compared with the IP hosts of existing equipment, a communication control method with the characteristics of transmitting the correct IP hosts to the existing equipment with the source of resolving the conflict of the IP hosts (hereinafter “instant Claim 4”).

Claim 5: In a method of controlling communications between a specific network equipment, the stage of collecting network control equipment and data links (MAC) from network control equipment existing in the network, the stage of storing communications control equipment installed to control communications in DB for collected network control equipment, the stage of detecting the drack decision protocol (ARP) protocol sent to communicate with other equipment in the network, and the stage of identifying whether ARPP equipment detected detected in the database of communications control equipment is subject to the blocking of communications, and the characteristics of the type of communication equipment in the case of being equipped with the ARP model to prevent communications and, in the case of falling under the target of the blocking of communications, the stage of making the ARP device installed to control communications available to the collected network manager and the type of communication control equipment in the case of being equipped with the communication control equipment (hereinafter referred to as the “communication method”) as an invention of the case where it is possible to select the communication equipment as necessary between the communication network (hereinafter referred to as the “communication method”).

Claim 7: In paragraph 5, the subject of the set-up of the above telecommunications control rule shall be a telecommunications control method with the characteristic of a communication between network radars, between data links, between data links, between network radars, and between data links, and between data links (hereinafter “instant Claim 7”).

In Claim 8: In paragraph 7, the subject of the set-up of the above telecommunications control point is a network service and network service group, a data link service group, a data link service group, a network service provider and data link service group, a network service provider and a data link service provider group, a data link service provider and a network service provider group, a network service provider and network service provider group, a network service provider and a network service provider group, a network service provider and a data link service provider group, with a feature of more communications between the network service provider and the network service provider group (hereinafter “instant Claim 8”).

Claim 9: In paragraph 5, in the case where the receiver's license is to be prevented, a communication control method with a characteristic of transmitting the recipient's protocol protocol "the same as the same" (hereinafter referred to as "instant Claim 9")

Claim 14: In paragraph 5, in the case of receiving data links, a telecommunications control method with the characteristic that, in the case of a recipient data link racker, the received protocol racker racker racker racker is more equipped with a normal data link racker with a normal data link racker racker and the phase of filling it up (hereinafter “instant Claim 14”).

Claim 16: A claim 16: A communication control device (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 16-1”) characterized by providing the above-mentioned communication control equipment with data links to the same level as other equipment on a network (hereinafter referred to as “Composition 16-1”; a network manager provides an environment in which communications handling can be set up to block communication among the above other equipment as necessary; and stores and manages the above-mentioned communication control equipment on a database (hereinafter referred to as “Composition 16-2”); and a ARPkket in which data links are operated by the data links to provide the equipment for the prevention of communications; and a communication control device (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 16-3”) with the characteristics of blocking communication among the equipment subject to blocking (hereinafter referred to as “concept 16-3”).

Applicant drawing: as shown in attached Form 1.

(b) Cited inventions;

(i)Other comparable Invention 1

ZSNET Korea’s Internet site as of April 17, 2003, posted on “NSNT Sheet Sheeting “A” (Evidence 4) and its main contents are as shown in Appendix 2.

Shed Invention 2

The term "IPS management using the specialized management initiative" published on the publication of June 2003, as the invention (Evidence A 5), and its main contents are as shown in Appendix 3.

【Utilityd Invention 3

The Plaintiff is a product inspected on May 21, 2003, which is a computer program supplied to a demand agency, etc. from around January 2003, which is one of the computer programs (IPS bank) products. A can be supplied and installed to the ○○ Military Office on May 13, 2003, and inspected on May 21, 2003. A can can be provided with support to manage all IP addresses and MAC addresses existing in the network so that they can block network access of unauthorized IP addresses and inform the manager of the situation when there is a conflict of IP addresses. The server server server server server server server server of comparable invention 3 is composed of 2.2.19, and the program server server of comparable invention 2.2.24. The detailed functions of comparable invention 3 appear on the screen and the manual submitted by the ○○ Military Office on November 28, 2007, and the main contents of the CD are as follows.

The defendant asserts that it is difficult to understand that the server servers of the ice cans supplied to ○○○○○○○○○○○ Office late than the server servers of the ice cans supplied to △△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, the plaintiff supplied the ice cans supplied to △△△△△△, and the ice cans supplied to ○○○○○○○ Office, are the same as the server servers (2.19) and the main program of two inventions, so the final date of revision of the servers are the same as the time for the same product, and the product supplied to △△△△△△△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, and the plaintiff’s act of transmitting the ice CDs to 20th○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, without any possibility that the plaintiff could transmit the Automatics to the 2nd.

However, in the process of developing the program, it is difficult for the program developer to exclude the possibility that the program developer erroneously created the program, and the date and time of producing the already produced installation program is indicated as the modification date, rather than the date and time of modifying the already-produced installation program. Thus, the date and time of final correction of IPS SPDD.DD. are the same until the beginning of the time, and the content of the installation program is not the same. According to the fact-finding with the court's fact-finding with regard to the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○, the ○○○○ Office cannot be deemed to have faithfully managed the program and products, such as designating a person in charge of computer and creating and managing an outside person's visiting the computer room, and then it is difficult for the ○○○○○○ Military Office to readily conclude that the program was not forged or falsified by the Plaintiff, in light of the fact-finding finding that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to easily conclude that the content of the program was forged or falsified by the Plaintiff.

x. Other comparable Invention of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as the comparable invention, uses the Amins cans and the Amins cans that the Plaintiff supplied to △△△ as the comparable invention. However, the result of the verification of the Amins cans and CDs supplied to △△△ (Evidence A7) is unclear about the source of the CD, which is subject to the verification, and thus, this cannot be deemed the comparable invention. The result of the verification by this court on the Amins cans and CD supplied to △△△, most of the contents of which appear on the Amins and CD supplied to △△△△, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the comparable invention.

C. Circumstances leading up to the instant trial decision

(1) On January 13, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Defendant, the right holder of the registered invention of this case, claiming that the registered invention of this case could easily be claimed from comparable inventions 1, etc. by a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).

C. On September 2, 2006, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the invention of this case on the ground that the nonobviousness is not denied by comparable invention 1, etc. among the registered inventions of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A through 5, Evidence A 7, Evidence B 9, and 10, and the result of the verification of IPS-related products submitted by the ○○ Military Office of this Court, the result of the fact inquiry about the head of this court’s ○○○ Gun, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. The issues of the instant case

The nonobviousness of the instant Claims 1 through 4, 7 through 9, 14, and 16 is denied by comparable inventions.

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

(i)Preparation of Technology and Purposes

The purpose of the instant registered invention and comparable invention 3 is to control communications between equipment on network in that the technical field is the same in that the instant registered invention and comparable invention 3 are technology on the method of not transmitting the container or the tag on a specific computer in a normal way by manipulating a ARP shacker, and they are common in terms of the same technical field and control communication among equipment on network.

Shebund Composition and Effect Preparation

㈎ 구성 1-1

Composition 1-1 is “a method to control communications among equipment on a specific network,” and the composition and function of comparable inventions 3 also is substantially the same in that it controls communications among equipment on a network through control activities, such as IP address and the blocking of network connection of specific equipment not permitted by using IP address and MAC address (PC 1,PC 2, etc.).

㈏ 구성 1-2

Composition 1-2 is “using telecommunications control equipment located on the same level as those on the commercial network,” which is substantially identical to the structure and function of comparable inventions 3 “the control of communications on computers located on the same franchise (LN) by using Aps cans cans servers and prob equipment.”

㈐ 구성 1-3

-3 Composition 1-3 provides data links for the equipment subject to the blocking of communications, so that data bags sent by the above blocking equipment would be transmitted to abnormal aircers, thereby blocking communication among the above blocking equipment. This is not only the data sent by the above blocking equipment but also the MAC address of the PC 2 PC operated to the PC 1 (MAC address of the PC 1 in non-intersection 3 in non-intersection 3) ARP Reckst, an ARP data link address of the equipment subject to the blocking of communications (this refers to the technology in which the control device handless the data link address of the equipment subject to the blocking to another data link address of other equipment." As a result, the data sent by the PC 1 to communicate with the PC 201 PC 12 PC 2.12 PC 2).

구성 1-3은 차단대상장비의 송신을 차단한다는 점에서는 비교대상발명 3과 동일하나, 복수의 차단대상 장비들 상호간의 차단 (예를 들어, PC1↔PC2)이라는 점에서 복수의 차단대상장비들 중 일방의 장비 (PC1→PC2)만을 차단하는 비교대상발명 3과 차이가 있다.

However, if the technology of the same principle as the blocking technology applied to PC1, which is the equipment subject to blocking, is applied repeatedly to the other equipment (e.g., PC2), it is automatically derived from the transmission blocking operation between the data link address of the equipment subject to blocking, so the person with ordinary skill can easily derive from the comparable invention 3.

【Reference Results

Inasmuch as the instant Claim 1 invention has common features for the purpose with comparable inventions 3, there is no difficulty in composition, and there is no illegality of effectiveness compared to comparable inventions 3, and thus, the nonobviousness is denied since ordinary technicians can easily derive from comparable inventions 3.

C. Whether the invention of this case No. 2 is inventive

The instant Claim 2 invention is a subordinate claim invention of Claim 1, and “The equipment in the situation of the communication blocking, despite being not subject to the communication blocking, is sent to the equipment in the situation of the communication blocking, to release the condition of the communication blocking by transmitting the above communication control device to the equipment in question.” This is corresponding to the composition of Section 2 (see Section 37-6) to remove the communication blocking by transmitting the normal MAC address of PC 2 to the PC where the communication control device in the above communication control device was interrupted by transmitting the PC to the PC 1, whose normal MAC address was interrupted by comparable invention 3 (see Section 7-6). The comparable invention 3 also has no need for the communication blocking, or even if it is not subject to the communication blocking, the nonobviousness of Claim 2 invention of this case is denied since it can easily be seen by the ordinary technician from the comparable invention 3.

D. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 3 invention is inventive

The instant Claim No. 3 invention is a subordinate claim invention of the instant Claim No. 1, and “In order to block communication among the equipment subject to blocking on the regular basis, the nonobviousness is denied since the instant Claim No. 3 invention includes “a technology in which the control device handles the data link address of the equipment subject to blocking to another data link address of equipment,” which is corresponding to Section 1-3 of the instant Claim No. 1-3, as it includes “a technology in which the control device handles the data link address of the equipment subject to blocking to another data address of equipment,” it can be easily derived from comparable inventions 3 from comparable inventions 1-3, and thus its inventive step is denied.

E. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 4 invention is inventive

The instant Claim 4 invention is subordinate to the instant Claim 1 invention. “In the event of a conflict between the IP base of equipment newly connected to the network and the existing IP base of the equipment, to resolve the conflict between the right IP base by transmitting the IP base of the equipment to the existing ones, and then transmitting them to the existing ones.” This is, “In the event that the PC address of PC 1 is changed to October 101, 192, 168.10.101, the PC address of PC 2, 190:0:0:0:86a:6:c7: 7) and the PC 2:01:00 on the screen (see, e.g., e., e., address of PC 1: the PC address of PC 2:3:00 on the screen and the PC 1:00 on the 1:6:0 on the 106:0 on the 1010-C screen address of PC 2: 1000 on the PC 101.1.1.1.0

Both are the same in that the proper IP address is transferred to the existing equipment.

However, the method of the instant Claim No. 4 invention is a hybrid transmission method, and the comparable invention 3 is different in that the comparable invention 3 is a hybrid transfer method, but this difference is identical in that the effect of the operation is transmitting the correct IP address to other equipment, so long as the person with ordinary skill can easily choose and change from the comparable invention 3, it is difficult to recognize the complexity of composition and the substantialness of effect.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 4 invention is denied by comparable invention 3.

F. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 7 invention is inventive

The instant Claim 7 invention is a subordinate claim invention of the instant Claim 5, and the instant Claim 5 invention is, “In the method of controlling communications between specific network equipment, the network racing devices exist in the network and data link racs (MAC) racsings (MAC). The network manager stores telecommunications control rules set up to DB to control the collected racscs in order to communicate with other equipment within the network, and the object of the instant Claim 5 invention is, “where any equipment within the network is discovered in the network, the network racscsation method (ARP) and the network 5 network racsation method,” and “where the network manager finds the network racsation of the network racsation, the object of the instant Claim 5 is, depending on the need for communication network racsation between the network racsing equipment and the communication network racsation method,” the object of the instant Claim 5.

The instant Claim 7 invention is characterized by the technical feature of voluntary communication blocking between equipment, but it also includes 1:1 blocking addresses between data links of equipment subject to blocking. As such, it can be easily derived from “a technology in which control devices process data links address of equipment subject to blocking to address data links of other equipment,” corresponding to Section 3 of the comparable Invention 3, corresponding to Section 1-3 by ordinary technicians.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 7 invention is denied by comparable invention 3.

G. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 8 invention is inventive

The instant Claim 8 invention is a subordinate invention to the instant Claim 5 invention, and the method of setting a telecommunications control method in the composition of the instant Claim 7 invention is more limited to the communications control method among the groups, and the comparable invention 3 does not know at all about the telecommunications control system among the groups, and there is no motive to derive it. As such, even if an ordinary engineer is a person, it cannot be easily drawn up the structure of setting a telecommunications control system that sets up a data link of the equipment other than the equipment subject to blocking (e.g., PC) beyond 1:1 transmission blocking among the equipment, even if it is applied to the other equipment (e.g., PC) other than the equipment subject to blocking in accordance with the same principle as described in 1-3 of the comparable invention 1-3.

In addition, even based on the comparable invention 1 and 2, there is no technology for establishing a telecommunication control system to block the communication among groups, and there is no motive to derive it. Therefore, it is impossible for a person with ordinary skills to easily derive the instant Claim 8 from comparable invention 1 and 2.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of Claim 8 invention of this case is not denied by comparable inventions.

H. Whether the invention under paragraph (9) of this case is inventive

The instant Claim No. 9 invention is a subordinate claim invention of the instant Claim No. 5, and it is a component that limits the cuttle to the “receiving side,” by providing that “if the recipient is subject to the shuttle cut off, the recipient is transmitting the shuttlek in the same way as “the recipient,” and the “receiving side,” of the instant Claim No. 9 invention corresponds to the PC 2 subject to the transmission when the transmission side is deemed to be the PC 1 from the comparable invention 3. As such, the corresponding Claim 3 of the comparable Invention No. 1-3, corresponding to the cited Invention No. 1-3, “the data link address of the equipment subject to the shuttle off,” such as “the technology that handles the data link address of the equipment subject to the shuttle 1 to another data link address of equipment,” so long as the MAC address of PC 2 was initiated, it is easy to transmit the corresponding device to the instant Claim No. 9.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 9 invention is denied by comparable inventions 3.

I. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

The instant Claim No. 14 invention is a subordinate claim invention of the instant Claim No. 5, and it is characterized by: (a) where a recipient data link display room exists as a blocker, the receiver shall have the phase in which the received protocol set up in a normal data link display room, and then, (b) the receiver shall not easily derive from the comparable invention 3 as it does not appear in the case of the instant Claim No. 5; and (c) the comparable invention No. 3 includes the phase in which the received protocol set up in a normal data link display room, and (d) the receiver cannot easily derive from the comparable invention 3.

In addition, even in cases of comparable inventions 1 and 2, whether the communication blocking between the equipment subject to the communication blocking does not appear, and there is no motive to derive from the communication blocking, so it is difficult for a person with ordinary skills to easily derive the instant Claim 14 invention from comparable inventions 1 and 2.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of Claim 14 invention of this case is not denied by the cited inventions.

I. Whether the invention of this case is inventive step

The instant Claim 16 invention is characterized by providing an environment in which the network manager can establish a telecommunication control rule that can block mutual communication among the above other equipment as necessary (hereinafter “Composition 16-1”), storing and managing the above telecommunications control rule in the database (hereinafter “Composition 16-2”), and providing the data link rack for the equipment set forth in the telecommunications control rule (hereinafter “Composition 16-2”), so as to prevent communication among the above equipment (hereinafter “Composition 16-3”).

Composition 16-1 is composed of 1-2 and 16-3 are the same as composition 1-3, respectively. Composition 16-1 and 16-3 can be easily derived from comparable inventions 3 as seen earlier in the aforementioned 1-2 and 1-3.

Composition 16-2 corresponds to the comparable Invention 3’s “Apice can servers provide an environment in which a communication control program can be established (see e.g., 7-1) and to the “33 pages (see 7-2, e.g., e., e., see 7-1) of the fixed telecommunications control screen on the database” (see e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e

Therefore, the nonobviousness of Claim 16 invention of this case is denied by comparable invention 3.

(k) Small decision;

Inasmuch as the nonobviousness of the instant Claims 8 and 14 is not denied by the cited inventions, the instant trial decision is legitimate in this part of the instant case, but the nonobviousness of the instant Claims 1 through 4, 7, 9, and 16 is denied, and thus, the instant trial decision is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim on the part concerning Nos. 8 and 14 of the decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim on Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 9, and 16 of this case is accepted for reasons.

Judges Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) Cho Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)