The case holding that the non-obviousness of the claim 1 of a patented invention, which is "a cut device for liquid natural gas storage tank members", is denied since ordinary technicians can easily cite by combining comparable invention 1, 2, and 3, and the composition of the claim 2 of the patent which is a subordinate claim citing the above claim 1 and the subordinate claim 3 and 4 of the patent claim citing the above claim 1 and the above claim 1 or paragraph 2, all of the above paragraphs 2 through 4 are denied on the grounds that there are no special technical significance.

Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

C&T Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

3. Members of the Patent Court (Patent Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2007Heo9828 Decided October 23, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In determining the inventive step of a patented invention, if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician") can easily use the patented invention in light of the technical level at the time of the application for the patented invention, technical awareness, technical task of the relevant technical field, tendency of development, demand from the relevant industry, etc. even though there is no suggesting, motive, etc. that the cited technology can be combined with the patented invention, the inventive step of the patented invention is denied (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Hu3284, Sept. 6, 2007; 2007Hu2926, May 28, 2009).

After finding facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 invention was denied on the grounds that ordinary technicians could easily cite the instant Claim Nos. 2 and subordinate claims 1 or 2 citing the instant Claim Nos. 1 and the instant Claim Nos. 3 and 4 citing the instant Claim Nos. 3 and 4 citing the instant Claim Nos. 2, 3 and 4, on the grounds that there are no special technical significance.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of invention or incomplete hearing.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)