본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 특허법원 2012.08.17 2012허1491

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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


1. Basic facts

A. Name of the patented invention (1) invention of this case: Date of filing of the automatic control device (2) in consideration of heating load : Date of filing of the right of priority / Date of filing of the registration / Date of April 19, 2009 / April 29, 2009 / April 15, 2010 / The patentee of March 15, 2010 / The plaintiff (4) claims and major drawings: Attached Table 1.

(hereinafter) Claim 1 of the patented invention of this case is referred to as " Claim 1 of this case", and the remainder of the claims are also referred to as the same method).

On April 29, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for an invention relating to “regular flow automatic control device” with No. 10-2009-37729, which is based on the priority claim of the instant patent invention. The main contents of the specification and drawings initially attached to the earlier application are as shown in attached Table 2.

C. The cited Invention 1 (Evidence 5) cited Invention 1 (A) is related to “heating device” indicated in No. 10-902306 of the Registered Patent Gazette publicly announced on June 10, 2009, and the main content and drawings thereof are as shown in attached Form 3-1.

(2) Invention 2 (A No. 6) Invention 2 (A) pertains to “influent calculation and heat of air conditioning” among the “written test for freezing machine articles/industrial engineer” published on March 10, 200, published on March 10, 200. The main contents are as shown in attached Form 3-2.

(1) On June 13, 2011, the Defendant’s trial decision of this case (1) against the Plaintiff on June 13, 201, and (5) inventions of this case (1) 1 and 5 are newly added without the specification or drawings attached to the first application for earlier application, which is the basis of the priority claim, and the date of determining the requirements for patent is not retroactive to the date of priority claim. (2) Inventions 1 and 5 of this case are denied inasmuch as a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention from comparable inventions, and (3) inventions 1 and 5 of this case, even if so, are