A. Shari Share (Patent & Patent Attorney Park Jae-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm KJ et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 15, 2011

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 12, 2008 on the case No. 2007Da1611 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) Name of invention: Polyvinyl alcohol content films and light films;

2) Date of application (date of priority claim)/registration date/registration number: April 30, 2001 ( May 1, 2000)/ March 13, 2007 / (patent registration number 1 omitted)

3) patentee: The plaintiff;

4) The scope of claims (which became final and conclusive by a trial decision No. 2010No. 50 dated November 30, 2010)

Claims 1 through 5, 8. (Dismissal)

6. Claim 6. The content of polyvinium does not exceed 0.5 weight for polyvin alcohol content, the characteristic of which is the production by using polyvinyl alcohol content as raw materials in the form of polyvinyl chloride in which the content of polyvinium is not less than 0.5 weight for polyvin alcohol content, not more than one to 100 z. 30 to 90 z., and the characteristics of which are the production by using polyvinyl alcohol content in the form of preserving 10 cc. and the thickness of which is 30 through 90 z. 50 z., when polyvinyl alcohol content is left unattended for four hours during the number of 1 z., the content of polyvinyl alcohol content is 10 to 60 p.m., and the content of polyvinium content is not more than 0.5% of polyvin alcohol content in the form of polyvinyl chloride, and the process of refining and 4 through 80 m.m.

7. In regard to claim 6, the method of manufacturing opium films, characterized by using dead material containing polyvinyl alcohol content, the content of which does not exceed 0.5 % for polyvinyl alcohol content, which is 0.5 % of which is made of polyvin alcohol content, as prepared at temperature below 150 cc.

9. The process of manufacturing polyvinyl alcohol content, which contains polyvinyl alcohol content content in the form of polyvinyl chloride in the form of 30-90-90-coined water in the form of preserving the weight of not less than 1 but less than 100 x, which is gainable by washing it from the hot water of z. The process of fixing and treating polyvinyl alcohol content content from polyvinyl chloride which contains not more than 0.5 cm for polyvin alcohol content, which contains 10 cm square meters and 30 through 90 x 50 x 1 liter film of polyvinyl alcohol content when it has been dead for four hours during the number of 1 liter of 50 x.

10. In claim 10. In paragraph 9, a light film which has been prepared at a temperature below 150 C 150.

(b) Cited inventions;

1) Cited Invention 1 (No. 2)

The comparable Invention 1 pertains to “a method of manufacturing a dead body” inserted in the Japanese Publication of Publication (Publication No. 1 omitted) published on February 23, 1999, which is published, and the main contents of the cited Invention 1 are as stated in paragraph (1) of the main contents of the Attached Invention 1.

2) Cited Invention 2 (No. 3)

The comparable Invention 2 pertains to “the method of manufacturing a blick light” inserted in the Japanese Patent Gazette, published on October 18, 1994, which is published in the Japanese Patent Gazette, and its main contents are as stated in paragraph (2) among the main contents of the comparable inventions 1.

3) Cited Invention 3 (No. 4)

Consumed Invention 3 is related to the “solylvinyl alcohol film” inserted in the Japanese Patent Gazette, published on December 8, 1998, which is published in the General Gazette (Public Notice No. 3 omitted) and its main contents are as stated in the attached Table 1’s main contents among the main contents of the comparable inventions.

4) Cited Invention 4 (No. 5)

Consumed Invention 4 is related to “production of polyvinyl chloride alcohol” inserted in the U.S.-registered patent (patent registration number 2 omitted) publicly announced on June 16, 1953, and the main contents of which are the same as that of the main contents of the comparable invention 1.

5) Cited Invention 5 (No. 10)

Invention 5 is related to "gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's gel's d

C. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On June 19, 2007, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the patent of this case against the Plaintiff, a patentee, on the ground that the patent invention of this case had ordinary skill in the relevant technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) could easily be claimed by comparable invention 1, 2, and 3. The Plaintiff filed a request for correction of correction to correct the specification of the patented invention of this case on November 8, 2007 (the scope of the patent claim at the time of registration of the patented invention of this case and the contents of the claim for correction as of November 8, 2007, are identical to the existing scope of the patent claim of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case)

2) After the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board examined the above case on the invalidation of registration as No. 2007Da1611, the plaintiff's request for correction was reduced on March 12, 2008 and does not substantially expand or modify the scope of claims. Thus, the corrected patented invention was lawful, but the defendant's request for adjudication was rendered on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied by comparable invention 1, 2, and 3.

3) Meanwhile, on July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for trial to correct the patent claim of the instant patent invention with the same content as that stated in paragraph A-4 of the same Article, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the petition to the extent that the above correction was reduced to the extent that it does not substantially expand or alter the patent claim, and made a public announcement of the request for correction on September 14, 2010 on the ground that the matters described in the patent claim after correction were legitimate since the patent application can be patented at the time of patent application, and there was no objection within two months after the public announcement in the Internet bulletin on September 16, 2010, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision to accept the request for correction correction on November 30, 2010, and the trial decision became final and conclusive on December 6, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 through 5 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case is whether the nonobviousness of the corrected invention in Articles 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the instant case is denied by the cited inventions (the scope of claims subject to determination in the instant trial decision was corrected as of November 8, 2007, but as seen above, the scope of claims subject to determination in the instant trial decision was corrected as described in the instant trial decision No. 2010-50, Nov. 30, 2010, and the said corrective trial decision became final and conclusive, on the grounds that the scope of claims subject to determination in the instant trial decision was corrected as described in the instant case No. 1-A-4) by the trial decision No. 2010-Ma50, Nov. 30, 2010, the Patent Tribunal became final and conclusive by the trial decision No. 2010-Ma50, Nov. 30, 2010).

3. Whether the inventive step of the corrective invention under paragraph (6) of this case is inventive

(a)to prepare for technology and objectives;

(i)technical field;

The corrective invention of Paragraph 6 of this case is about the manufacturing method of luminous films using polyvinyl chlorides (hereinafter referred to as "PVA") as a raw material.

First of all, comparable invention 1 and 2 are related to the technology that manufactures a light caption from PVA, and thus, the correction invention in paragraph 6 of this case and its technical field are the same.

In addition, the comparable invention 3 is about the technology that manufactures the upper film from PVA, and the upper film also belongs to the optical film applied to the liquid panel like the luminous film, so the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case and the comparable invention 3 are about the technology that manufactures the optical film applied to the liquid panel from PVA.

Furthermore, the comparable invention 4 is related to the method of manufacturing PVA suitable for using a photographic fluid (photograsing) or for other cases requiring PVA, and the comparable invention 5 is related to PVA booming PVA. Thus, the comparable invention 4 and 5 are not related to the technology itself which manufactures optical films applied to the liquid panel from PVA, but they are related to PVA used as a raw material of optical film of the corrected invention 6 of this case.

(ii) Purpose;

The corrective invention of Paragraph 6 of this case is an invention that intends to use the PVA film to provide a luminous film with an unnecessary color and less than anything else (the identification number No. 6 of the evidence No. 6 of this case ? 2> through ? 6).

On the other hand, comparable invention 1 aims to provide PVA prevention and its manufacturing method without any dynamic and mechanical impairment of the PVA’s original dynamic and mechanical characteristics and without any complicated process (hereinafter referred to as “PVA film”), and comparable invention 2 aims to solve the problem of low dynamics compared to the PVA’s film in the event of using high tension PVA film at low temperature, with a view to providing polyvinyl alcohols with high luminousity and high resistant corrosion and resistant resistance (hereinafter referred to as “PVA film”) / [02] / [03] / [03] / [1] 2] / 6] / 6] / 6] / [2] / 6] / 6] / [2] / 6] / [2] / 6] / [3] /” / [1] / 6] / 6] /” / [6] / [3] / [6] PE of the PV invention in this case.

In addition, the comparable invention 3 is aimed at providing the upper film of the PVA system with high heat-resistant heat without solar or heat (hereinafter referred to as “PVA”), and the comparison invention 3 aims at providing the PVA prevention or manufacturing method to improve the physical properties from PVA, and the comparison invention 3 aims at providing the manufacturing method. In addition, the correction invention of paragraph 6 of this case and its purpose are common, but there is a difference between the nature of the physical properties to be improved and the type of optical film that is the object of improvement.

Furthermore, the comparable invention 4 aims to provide Hegel with a low-quality PVA which is suitable for using photographed or refined PVA in other cases where it is required, to provide a method of manufacturing high-class PVA of a uniform quality, to provide a low-quality PVA which remains, and to provide a PVA Hegel with a minimum solution in air conditioners (Article 5) (Article 5 of the Invention 5 of the Invention 5 of the Invention 5 of the Invention 5 of the Invention 5 of the Invention), and to provide a high-quality PVA brine with high-quality PVA which is capable of using as a drainage fence (Article 1 of the No. 10 of the evidence No. 10 of the Invention No. 10 of the Invention No. 4 and 5 of the Invention No. 10 of the Invention No. 10 of the Invention No. 10 of the Invention No. 001 of the Invention No. 6 of the instant case’s correction purpose is different from the correction invention of this case.

Therefore, the correction invention of the Claim 6 of this case is recognized as peculiar in comparison with the comparable invention 1 to 5.

(b) Organizational preparation

1) Analysis of components

The correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case is comprised of ① the composition of the PVA’s PVA’s raw material, and the content of asphalt content is not more than 0.5 % for PVA (hereinafter “Composition 1”), the weight of not less than 1 but less than 30 through less than 90 %) the ratio of 30 x 100 x z. (hereinafter “Composition 2”), ② the composition of PVA’s film, which is the 10 cm square and the thickness of which is 30 through 90 x. 5 x. 4 x. 5 x. x. 4 x. x. x. 4 x. x. x. PA’s cVA film, which is the 50 x x. 1 x. x. 50 x. x. 50 x. x. x. 4 x. m. (hereinafter “Composition 3”).

2) Composition 1

The composition 1 of the correction invention of this case is "if the content of Arabic is less than 0.5% of 0.5% in PVA material in the form of the statement," and in this regard, the detailed description of the correction invention of this case is "if the content of alkic metal compound exceeds 0.5% in 0.5% in al.5% in al.e., cal., al., al.e., al., e., al.e., e., chlogram metal compound in al.e., al., al., al., al.e., al., al., al.e., al., al.e., al., al.ph. metal compound in PEA film of this case, it is easy to prevent al.e., al., al., al., al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al.

On the other hand, the cited Invention 3 is the maximum characteristic that “Ayptium content among the PVA films acquired by the method of 3 non-subject inventions is not more than 1 weight (0.01:01:0.5 weight, in particular, 0.01-0.1 weight ratio)” and the content of Arabic content exceeds 1%, the purpose of this invention is not achieved by the occurrence of color on the upper film.” (No. 006) (No. 4).

On the other hand, the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case and the comparison invention 3 of this case are related to the luminous film and the upper film, so the specific types of the final product are different, but all the final product is common in that it is a optical film applied to the liquid panel, and the effect that the production of each film is intended to be achieved by limiting the content of Arabicium as a raw material in the composition of the above film, and the content limit overlaps with the numerical scope of content limit. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that if an ordinary technician is a technician, it can easily derive the composition 1 of the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case as to the luminous film from the above response composition of the comparison invention 3 of the comparison invention of this case as to the above commercial film.

3) Composition 2

(1) The meaning of composition

The composition 2 of the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case is that the PVA preserving preserving the PV is cut down from the hot water level of 30 to 90 C 100 c.

In this regard, the detailed description of the corrective invention of this case shows that “PVA film is used in salt color process or roof compounds in the event of drying process, in the event of stimulation process, and in the case of stimulation process, part of PVA film is used from PVA film before stimulation process or in stimulation process. As used PVA coming out within the treatment protocol and is attached to or connected with PVA film or luminous film, it reduces the number of luminous films. In addition, there is a problem in the cost of treating wastewater.” (No. 6 evidence of this case, No. 5), “PVA film of this case is marked as 0 in the process of manufacturing stimulation, fixed treatment, expansion of stimulation, etc.) or stimulation method in the process of manufacturing stimule film, whichever is easy to use PVA film or stimulation method in the process of manufacturing stimul.

In light of these contents, it seems to be aimed at preventing the phenomenon in which part of PVA films are damaged from PVA films during the process of manufacturing the PVA films and are opened within the processing protocol by putting the PVA into water and making the PVA films using them as raw materials.

(2) Preparation with comparable Invention 1 and 2

First of all, the specification of comparable invention 1 and 2 does not contain any description that could correspond to the composition 2 of the correction invention of the instant Claim 6. Therefore, the aforementioned composition 2 cannot be compared to that of the comparable invention 1 and 2.

(3) Preparation for comparable Invention 3

Next, the specification of the comparable invention 3 states that “The content of acrylicium in the PVA’s upper film can be adjusted by controlling the content of acrylicium in the PVA’s upper film, etc., or by regulating the content of acrylicium in the PVA’s medium combination, or by manufacturing the PVA’s hydrogen content in the PVA’s film as films. Specifically, the content of acrylicium may be adjusted by refining it into carbon or water after the steinyl chloride’s steination of polyvinylvinyl chloride, or by removing nitroium content in the PVA’s stein acid by steining and expanding it into water.” (07) (No. 4). The implementation method can be seen as 00% of the identification number [the identification number] of the PVA’s 1] content in the PVA’s PVA’s 0.4% of the PVA’s steinium content in the 1.

In contrast, Section 6 (6) of this case’s correction invention 2 is characterized by removing in advance the PVA to be used from the PVA film in order to prevent any connection with the HVA caused by the PVA. On the other hand, the specification of the comparable invention 3 shows only technical ideas that reduce the AVA’s content, but does not include any description of the composition that adopts the pVA’s detailed process in order to remove in advance the PVA to eliminate the PVA that would be easily used.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that an ordinary skilled person could easily derive from the cited invention 3 the composition 2 of the instant Claim No. 6 invention (and not only the instant Claim No. 6 invention is an invention that is likely to be commercialized by composition 2 by removing in advance the PVA that is likely to be commercialized by composition 2, thereby achieving the pVA flow within the numerical limit of Composition 3. As such, the composition 2 and 3 of Claim No. 6 of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant case is a component of the organic combination relationship, and is a characteristic element to achieve the purpose of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant case, whereas the cited invention No. 3 of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant case does not contain any description corresponding to the composition 3 of Claim No. 6 of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant case, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that an ordinary skilled person could easily draw

In regard to this, although the Defendant stated in the specification of comparable invention 3 that, although comparable invention 3 does not exclude any other purpose or effect due to the removal of PVA, the correction invention of paragraph 6 of this case does not include PVA as well as PVA, and thus, the PVA and the correction invention of paragraph 6 of this case claimed to the purport that there is no substantial difference in that the correction invention of the comparable invention 3 and paragraph 6 of this case is composed of removal of PVA and Egytium in the form of removal of PVA and Egytium.

However, the comparable invention 3 explicitly starts with the following facts: “Aypt content among the acquired PVA’s upper films is not more than 1 weight (0.01-0.5 weight, in particular 0.01-01-0.1 weight), and the content of Ayptium exceeds 1 weight, the purpose of the invention is not achieved because it has been colored on the upper film, and its content is not more than 1 weight.” (B) as one of the methods of regulating the content of Ayptium in PVA’s upper film, as one of the methods of regulating the content of PVA’s upper film, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that “PVA’s film contained in the PVA’s upper film is not more than 300,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000) are less than 30,000,000).

(4) Preparation for comparable Invention 4

In addition, the specification of the comparable invention 4 contains the following: “PVA Hegel who had gone through the Ethrphs for more than two days in cooling water,” stating that “PVA Hegel was able to actually remove ethyl and salt substance and obtain the minimum solution temperature of at least 75§¯,” and that “PVA Hegel was able to obtain the PVA Hegel in the document No. 5 and claim No. 1,” and that “PVA Hegel was set from the temperature below the minimum solution temperature after the Ethrphis was set up in the claim No. 1 to No. 4.”

In contrast, Section 6 (6) of this case’s correction invention 2 is characterized by removing in advance the PVA to be used from the PVA films in the form of the PVA’s form of the PVA’s form of water (water temperature) before the process of manufacturing the PVA’s process, and there is no description in the composition that adopts the PVA’s process to remove the ethyl and salt compounds generated as by-products in the process of manufacturing the PVA’s process, while the specifications of comparable inventions 4 include: (a) detailed specifications of comparable inventions 4 include: (b) detailed specifications of PVA(PVA’s acquisition stage; (c) detailed specifications of the PVA’s process of removing the ethyl and salt compounds generated as by-products; and (d) do not include any description in the composition that adopts the PVA’s process in order to remove the PVA easily released in advance.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that an ordinary skilled person could easily derive from the cited invention 4 the composition 2 of the instant Claim No. 6 invention (in addition, the instant Claim No. 6 invention is an invention that is likely to be used by composition 2 by removing in advance the PVA that is likely to be used by composition 2, thereby achieving the pVA flow within the numerical limit of Composition 3. As such, the composition 2 and 3 of Claim No. 6 of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant case is a component of the organic combination relationship, and is a characteristic element to achieve the purpose of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant case. However, the instant Claim No. 4 did not contain any description corresponding to the composition 3 of Claim No. 6 of the instant Claim No. 6 of the instant case, and in this respect, it is difficult to deem that an ordinary skilled person could easily derive the composition 2 of Claim No.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, in the specification of comparable invention 4, the purpose of removing ethyl and salt compounds generated as by-products is to eliminate ethyl and salt compounds in the process of purchasing PVAgels, the cited inventions 4 is to specify gel in order to eliminate the depression, and the specification of comparable inventions 4 is merely stated as “a considerable amount of gels may decrease at the world level.” Thus, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that, if an ordinary engineer is, it can easily be removed from the PVA which is easily visible through gel.

However, the comparable invention 4 aims to provide PVA with a method of manufacturing a high-level PVA of uniform quality and to provide a low residual ethyl content in air conditioners (i.e., it is difficult to be melted by air conditioners and high temperature) PVA Hegel as water in order to achieve this objective, and to identify the PVA Hegel as water in order to achieve this objective, and to find it difficult to accept the Defendant’s technical intent to remove the PVA’s motive for removing the PVA’s ethyl compounds from the temperature below the minimum available sea temperature after gelling the gel as water, and to minimize the losses of PVA’s gel’s gel’s gel from the PVA’s gel’s gel’s gel’s gel’s gel’s gelg’s gel to the effect that it can not be accepted because it merely presents the Defendant’s motive to remove the PVA’s gel’s gel compound.

(5) Preparation with comparable Invention 5

In addition, the specification of comparable invention 5, "PVA is 1 hour after setting about 40 %) 1-hours of PVA, added water to PVA to 8%, and treat it with 30 minutes from Oratocracate. This is flexible so as to have a thickness of 5 meters - 20 cm freezing and 12 hours from the freezing, and piracy at the actual temperature. Such a detailed specification of comparable invention 5 - 30 g/L, yellow acid and sulfur 30 cm of 40 cm of PHE, and cut off the PVA’s 10 moride of 5 morgel’s 19 morgel’s morgel’s e.g., 100 morgel’s e., e., g., e., g., g., g.’s e., e., e., e., 19 morg.’side.

On the other hand, Section 6 of the Correction Invention 2 of the instant Claim 6 has characteristics such as “the prevention of the occurrence of a luminous connection due to the PVA coming out by removing in advance the PVA which is easy to be used from the PVA film by putting the PVA into water after setting up the PVA in the form of the statement of the instant Claim 6 to be made into the PVA which is the raw material of the luminous film.” On the other hand, in order to reduce the PVA exposure volume of the PVA Heggel who is to be used as the final product of the PVA which is in itself for draining treatment, and to solve the technical issues that he would improve the composition of the PVA which is to be made by the said Hegel into the PVA which has the degree of sVA to be made into the PVA which has a specific part of the process of making it into the manufacturing process of Hegel after setting about 1 hour with the 40-hour water level.”

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that an ordinary skilled person could easily derive from comparable invention 5 the composition 2 of the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case (including the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case). In addition, since the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case is an invention that is likely to achieve the pVA emissions within the numerical limit of No. 3 by removing in advance the PVA that is likely to be commercialized by composition 2, it is difficult to view that the composition 2 and 3 of Paragraph 6 of this case is a component of the organic combination relationship, and is a characteristic element to achieve the purpose of the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case, while the comparison 5 is not an element corresponding to the composition 3 of the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case, it is difficult to see that the ordinary skilled person can easily derive from comparable invention 5 the composition 2 of Paragraph 6 of this case from comparable invention 5).

(6) Results of preparation

Ultimately, it is difficult to view that the composition 2 of the instant corrective invention No. 6 is easily derived from comparable inventions 1 through 5 by a person with ordinary skills.

4) Composition 3

The composition 3 of the corrective invention of Paragraph 6 of this case is related to the pVA exposure in PVA film. It is limited to “When the PVA film of 10 cm and the thickness of 30 to 90 is neglected for 4 hours during the 1 liter water of 50 x.”

On the other hand, the specification of comparable invention 2 through 5 does not include all the matters that could correspond to the composition 3 of the corrected invention of this case under paragraph 6 of this case. As such, composition 3 cannot be compared to that of comparable invention 2 through 5.

However, the specification of the comparable invention 1 contains the quantity of 1 to 43 (028) of the PVA solution in which “PVA solution is created by fluoring so as to prevent the PVA solution, and then fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorum fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluor fluorium fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fum fluor f. f.

With respect to the method of measuring 3 pVA emitting ray content of the corrected invention of this case, the detailed description of the PVA Quantities 3 is hereinafter the same. PVA emitting quantity is left unattended for 4 hours in 10 cm PV film of 50 cc, in coloring this extraction amount with amlod-Edrium solution within 10 cm, and the luminous intensity of the production of amlodrific shock is also 120 cc. The amlodic ray 3 amlodic ray extraction method of the corrected invention of this case. As such, it is different from the detailed description of the PV Ga 50 amlodic ray 50 mlodic amlodic amlodic lodic amlodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic lodic locheric locheric locheric ide.

On the other hand, the usage rate of comparable invention 1, as seen above, is indicated in the specification only as “the act of cutting, separating, and drying after cutting the final studio (121cc, 2 hours) from the ogles,” and does not contain any further detailed methods, but comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleading in the statement No. 6, it is reasonable to see that the content of the argument in the statement No. 1, “Research on ginyl chloride alcohol” published in about 45 years prior to the priority date of the patented invention in this case, published in approximately 45 years prior to the priority date of the patented invention in this case, by the general method of measuring the meltability, it appears that there was the fact that “the weight of the flinyl alcohol in flin alcohol in flinium before expansion - the weight of the flin fl in fl in flinium before expansion) / the weight of the flining fl infl.”

As can be seen, the method of measuring the volume of PVA 3 of the corrected invention of this case and the method of measuring the ratio of melting comparable invention 1 are different from each other. Also, the method of measuring the ratio of melting comparable invention 1 is merely simply calculating the weight before and after the melting according to the unilateral method measuring the above meltability, and it is not only the PVA, but also the meltent component measured not only the melting PVA, but also the gynaium used for the final melting manufacturing process of comparable invention 1, but also all melting components, such as gynaium, and other gynaium remaining due to non-nets, such as gynaium and additives. Thus, it is different from the gynasium measured by the 3th composition of the corrected invention of this case.

Therefore, it cannot be compared to the PVA’s measurement values of the PVA’s quantity of the corrected invention of this case No. 6 and the measurement values of the usage rate of comparable inventions 1. Ultimately, the composition 3 of the corrected invention of this case No. 6 cannot be easily derived from comparable inventions 1 through 5 by a person with ordinary skills.

5) Composition 4

The composition 4 of the corrective invention of this case is that the content of Arabic content contained in the PVA film is not more than 0.5% of 0.5% of PVA with respect to the PVA compound. This is a composition naturally derived from the composition that uses the PVA heat, the content of which is less than 0.5% of 0.5% of 0.5% of 0.5% of 1.

Therefore, for the same reasons as examined in the part 1 above, it is reasonable to view that the composition 4 of the corrective invention of Paragraph 6 of this case can be easily derived from the comparable invention 3 by a person with ordinary skill.

6) Composition 5

The composition 5 of the corrective invention of this case is about "the manufacturing process of the light film, including the one that can be reduced by one to eight times per annum, the one that can be chrouded, the one that can be salted, and the one that is fixed and processed."

In response, the specification of the comparable invention 2 is as follows: “The amount manufactured by melting halogium or halog halogane into the PVA body, melting it with 70°C; Then, the PVA film is processed in the order of preliminary expansion, chlographing, dysing, fixed treatment, and 50°dried with 50°, which is 5.3 times or 5.4 times or more, which is the immediately preceding rate of cut limit limit, and the 1 year credit rate is 004, 012, 014 / [014], ] The annual credit rate of 1 year credit is 3 times or more, and 40°the annual credit rate of 1 year credit is 5 times or more, and the annual credit rate is 5 times or more, and the annual credit rate is 5 times or more, and the annual credit rate is 10 times or more, and the annual credit rate is 30 times or more.0 times more.”

7) Formational preparedness results

As seen earlier, the composition 1 and 4 of the instant Claim Nos. 6 could easily be derived from comparable inventions 3 by a person with ordinary skills. Composition 5 is substantially the same as the corresponding structure of comparable inventions 2. However, Composition 2 and 3 cannot be easily derived from comparable inventions 1 through 5. Thus, when considering the composition of the instant Claim Nos. 6 as a whole and organic aspect, the instant Claim Nos. 6 invention is deemed to have difficulty in composition compared with the cited Inventions 1 through 5.

(c) preparation for effects;

The corrective invention of Paragraph 6 of this case adopted the detailed process (Composition 2) to remove in advance the PVA to be melted in each process in the process of manufacturing the luminous film, thereby raising the performance and the rate of the luminous film by preventing the PVA, which was melted in the process of manufacturing the luminous film, from being attached to or tamped in the luminous film, and also having the effect of resolving the wastewater treatment problem arising from the utilisation of PVA (No. 6, the identification number of No. 10).

On the other hand, the cited Invention 1 through 5 lacks “a composition to set up the PVA preserving PVA preserving the PVA in order to remove the easily visible PVA prior to the instant corrected invention,” such as composition 2 of the instant corrected invention, and does not appear to be any implication on such technical ideas. Therefore, it is difficult for a person with ordinary skills to easily estimate the effects of the instant corrected invention 6 of the instant corrective invention from Cited Invention 1 through 5.

Therefore, the corrective invention of the instant Claim No. 6 is recognized in comparison with the cited invention No. 1 through 5.

D. Sub-committee

As seen above, the correction invention of Paragraph 6 of this case is recognized in comparison with the cited invention 1 through 5, and its nonobviousness is not denied by the cited inventions, since the uniqueness of purpose, complexity of composition, and effectiveness are recognized.

4. Whether the inventive step of the corrective invention as to Nos. 7, 9, and 10 of the instant case is inventive step

A. As to the corrective invention under Paragraph 7 of this case

The amendment invention of Paragraph 7 of this case is a subordinate claim of Paragraph 6 of this case, which includes the technical characteristics of the amendment invention of Paragraph 6 of this case, and the amendment invention of Paragraph 6 of this case limited to Paragraph 6 of this case, so as to solve the problem that PVA films and optical films exceed 150 cc (0 cc. 6 of No. 6 of this case's identification number [046], and the amendment invention of Paragraph 7 of this case is not denied non-obviousness by the subordinate invention of Paragraph 6 of this case as long as the non-obviousness of Paragraph 6 of this case is not denied by comparable inventions.

B. As to the corrective invention under paragraph (9) of this case

The instant Claim No. 9 invention is an invention related to the optical film, characterized by its characteristic that includes the composition 1 through 5 of the instant Claim No. 6. As seen earlier, insofar as the instant Claim No. 6 invention is not denied by comparable inventions, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 9, which has the same technical feature, shall not be denied by comparable inventions.

C. As to the corrective invention of this case No. 10

The instant Claim 10 invention is the subordinate claim of the instant Claim 9, and is limited to the invention whose raw material for the manufacture of a dead body was made in the temperature below 150 C. As seen earlier, insofar as the instant Claim 9 invention is not denied by comparable inventions, the instant Claim 10, which is its subordinate claim invention, shall not be denied by the comparison invention.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the patented invention of this case, for which correction has become final and conclusive by the trial ruling No. 2010-50 of the Intellectual Property Tribunal, is not denied by the cited inventions, and the decision of this case has different conclusions, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is accepted.

Judge Dok-si (Presiding Judge)