2012Heo6700 Confirmation of the scope of rights (specific)

Copia Co., Ltd.

Sha Haba Haba Haba Haba Haba Haba Haba Haba Haba Haba

November 2012, 200

January 25, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 26, 2012 on the case No. 1183 per 201 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) Name of the invention: Heat stephher polys film and roll;

2) Date of filing of the priority claim/registration number: Date of filing of the priority claim/registration number: April 26, 2001// October 8, 2004/ March 24, 2006/ No. 10-056499 of March 24, 2006

3) A patentee: The defendant;

4) Claims: as shown in [Attachment 1] (hereinafter referred to as " Claim No. 1 of the patented invention of this case" is referred to as " Claim No. 1 of this case").

(b) An invention subject to verification;

The Defendant’s amendment on May 31, 2012 to the effect that the invention pertaining to 'specific 'heat chlodial polyspheride film and roll' is as follows, and its technical content and drawings (attached Form 2) are as follows. The reasons for the instant trial decision are as follows.

1) On May 26, 2011, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the confirmation of the scope of the right by asserting that “the invention subject to confirmation prior to the amendment is identical to the invention of Paragraph 1 of this case and falls under the scope of the right.” After all, the Defendant revised the invention subject to confirmation on May 31, 2012 based on the Plaintiff’s motion for practice.

2) On June 26, 2012, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board held that the Defendant conducted the challenged invention as of June 26, 2011, and that the challenged invention was specified to the extent that it can be compared to the instant Claim 1 invention, and that the instant Claim 1 invention was made a trial decision citing the Defendant’s request for a trial on the ground that the instant invention falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 1 invention, on the grounds that “The Patent Gazette disclosed on August 8, 1995, published as of “Special 7-205283,” was not denied by the “heat aquatic hex Epite film”, and that the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim 1 invention.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The ground for revocation of the trial decision of the plaintiff's assertion of this case is that the technical scope of the invention of this case cannot be specified because the scope of the right is unclear, or that the scope of the right cannot be acknowledged on the ground of lack of description under Article 42 (4) 2 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197, Mar. 1, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Patent Act"). Since the invention of this case falls under the scope of the right of the invention of this case, the trial decision of this case as otherwise stated in the conclusion shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Whether it is impossible to recognize the scope of the right to the invention under paragraph (1) of this case

D. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) It is unclear within the scope of the patent term of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case only that the heat reduction rate in the direction directly linked to the largest reduction direction is 7% or less, and since it is unclear whether the lowest value is 0% or less, whether it includes the area, and if it includes the area (including the area), it is impossible to determine whether it is a few% or less, etc., the scope of the invention of this case cannot be recognized as being in violation of the description requirements under Article 42(4)2 of the former Patent Act, because the scope of the right is unclear, or it is impossible to determine the scope of the right. (2) In the scope of Claim No. 1 of this case, the heat reduction rate in the direction directly linked to the largest reduction direction, the content rate in the direction directly connected to the largest reduction direction and the maximum reduction direction, 【within 3% of average value and 【within 2% of average value and within 【within 1% of average value and within the range of average value, respectively, the average value of each claim No. 1 invention of this case is described as the lowest value.

Therefore, since it is unclear where the claims of the instant Claim No. 1 are adjacent to 0% of the average value, the scope of the instant Claim No. 1 invention cannot be specified because the scope of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is unclear, or it violates the requirements stipulated in Article 42 and Article 42 (4) 2 of the former Patent Act, and thus, cannot be recognized.

3) The instant Claim No. 1 invention is manufactured by mixing two or more kinds of raw materials, and its meaning is inconsistent with each other, as it is not possible for the technical scope of the instant Claim No. 1 invention to be completely mixed in the process of mixing raw materials A (i.e., chip chip A) and raw materials B/P B/P (i.e., chip B/P) with the process of mixing them independently. Thus, the instant Claim No. 1 invention cannot be acknowledged as having violated the requirements of Article 42(4)2 of the former Patent Act, even though the average value is not 0% of the average value. Thus, the instant Claim No. 1 invention contains 【0% of the average value of the materials of the largest secondary constituent unit, including 【0% of the average value of the materials of the largest secondary constituent unit, and thus its meaning is unclear.

B. Determination

1) In the event that an invention includes a numerical value, it is desirable to clearly state in the claim the upper or lower limit of the numerical value in both the upper and lower limit of the numerical value at the claim. However, in order to solve a technical task aimed at this purpose, the upper or lower limit of the numerical value is technically significant, and if an ordinarily skilled person can easily choose in executing the invention, it is sufficient to specify only the upper or lower limit of the technically important numerical value, and it cannot be viewed that the invention is unclear merely because the technically important lower or lower limit is not specified.

With respect to the heat reduction rate in the direction of direct comparison to the maximum reduction direction, the specification of the patented invention of this case, as stated in subparagraph (8) of paragraph (1), shall make up from the cut part of each sample to 10cm x 10cm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m. as stated in paragraph (1), 10 seconds out of the 85° m m m m m m m., and then 25§ 10 seconds out of the m m m m m. of all samples, when calculating the average value of the m m m m m m m m m m m. of all samples, the heat reduction rate in the direction of direct comparison is less than 7%,

In particular, this requirement (8) is a requirement relating to films that do not cause any inferior external appearance that is called “hythrhhhh”. Here, rhythrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhhrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above part of the assertion is difficult to accept.

2) The patented invention of this case is intended to reduce the appearance of the invention due to the suppression of film creation and heat reduction change, and in order to solve these technical tasks, paragraph 1 invention of this case limits the range of the difference that the heat reduction rate in the direction of directly linking all samples with the maximum water reduction rate in the largest side components, the maximum water reduction rate in the direction of the largest water reduction unit, and the maximum water reduction rate in the direction of the extension direction, within a specific range from the average value (【3%, 2°1%, + 1%) (see, e.g., the technology to which the invention belongs and its field, and the technical task to which the invention belongs, 1, 5%, 4%, 4%, 4%, 1%, 1%, 23-24 'claim 1', etc., so it is not desirable that the technological average value of the invention of this case can be seen as 0% more than the average value.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above part of the assertion is difficult to accept.

3) In theoretical sense, it is possible to combine two or more kinds of raw materials equally, but technically impossible to execute them with respect to an ordinarily skilled person. Of the claims for paragraph 1 of this case, the content ratio of the largest secondary components within the scope of the claims for the instant Claim No. 1 means only the technically feasible difference within the scope of the difference. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is difficult to accept the instant Claim No. 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 on the premise that it would be difficult to independently use the pertinent part of the Claim No. 1 of the instant Claim No. 2 of the instant Claim No. 1, on the ground that it is possible to independently use the pertinent part of the Claim No. 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 in the event of mixing of the intermediate elements (e.g., NPG/TPA) with the middle of the raw materials provided as the main constituent unit of the instant Claim No. 1 of the instant case.

4. Whether the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the invention under paragraph (1) of this case.

(a) Analysis of components

The invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is 0.2m wide and 100 to 600m high water esther film (hereinafter referred to as 'the composition 1'), the main composition unit of the composite body among the raw materials of chirrology chirrhesion film is Eethylene tephththalate, and the most primary and secondary component unit other than the main component unit is composed of the largest quantity of the secondary components, which is composed of the Nene galphthal and teththal acid, the 1,4-Balthalthal and tethal acid, the 1,4-Clothalthic acid and the tethal acid, the 1,400 to 600m high water terate, and the 1,000 to 1,000 to 600m high water terate, and the 2,000 to 2,000 Ethalthal (hereinafter referred to as 'Ntethicide') and 3'.

(1) When the part of the part in the starting of the film in normal area in which the film and physical properties are stable in the direction of the length of film is called as the part in Part I, the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the second part, and the part in the part in the last part within 2 meters from the inside the part in the part in the first part, and at the same time the part in the first part shall be installed within 100 meters from the cut part, and the part in the sample cutting shall be installed at the same time, each 10cm x 10cm from the cut part in the part in the first part, and 10cm x 10cm x 10cm from the number in the fixed part in 85cm, and 25cm from the 10 seconds number in the number in the upper part in the 85cm, the maximum reduction rate in the direction of water reduction is above 20% for all samples, and the average value is calculated within 【 within the limit of 3% of the average value of all the samples.

(2) With respect to each sample sample separately from each sample cutting unit in paragraph (1) of the requirement of film, when measuring the content ratio of the largest secondary component unit, the content ratio of all samples in the highest secondary component unit is not less than 7 m2 per all constituent units, at the same time when calculating their average value, the content ratio of the highest secondary component unit of all samples is within the range of 【2 m2 per cent from this average value.

(3) In the cut part of each sample as described in paragraph (1) of the requirement, 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm, each sample drawn up by 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm x 25 x 10 cm x 25 x 25 x 7% of the average value of all samples, the heat reduction rate in the direction of direct comparison to the maximum reduction direction of all samples is less than 7%, and when calculating the average value of these direct comparison, the vertical reduction rate in the direct comparison direction of all samples is within the range of +1% from this average value.

(b) Organizational preparation

1) Composition 1

The composition 1 is 0.2m wide and 100 to 600m high spherical polyspher film of the invention in question. The film width of the invention in question is 0.6m wide, the length of film is 2020m high spherical polyspher film roll (the name of the invention in question of No. 3, No. 28m high, the size of film).

The two compositions are the same in that they are 0.2m or more (0.66m or more) and in that they are the hot spherical polyspherm film and roller (2020m or more) the length of which is 1000 to 600m or more (2020m or more), there is no dispute between the parties.

2) Composition 2

2 The composition 2 is the unit consisting of ethylene tephthalate, tephthalate, and the lowest secondary components consisting of the largest volume of secondary components other than the main constituent units; the unit consisting of the unit consisting of 1,4- butane tephalate and tephthal acid; the unit consisting of 1,4-Sixalate and tephthal acid; or the unit consisting of 1,4-Sixate tephalium and tephthal acid; or the unit consisting of 2 ethyl tephalate and ephalthal acid (i.e., ethyl tethalate unit) composed of at least 10 ethyl tephalate and 5 ethyl tephalthal acid. The component consisting of at least 10 ethyl ethyl tephalthalate units, and the component consisting of at least 12 ethyl ethyl tephalthalate units.

The two compositions are the same from the fact that the unit of ethylene is contained in the Ethththical unit and from the fact that the unit consisting of ethylene glycol and the teththical unit is selected in the most secondary unit (in this regard, there is no dispute between the parties).

3) Composition 3

- Composition 3 is the product manufactured by mixing two or more kinds of heavy body ("BD") in the challenged invention. More specifically, "TPA/EG/NPG" and "TPA/NPG" consisting of at least two kinds of heavy body ("BD") and "TPA/BD" consisting of at least 1,4- butane and tephthal acid ("TPA/BD") are correspond to the composition of "(see whether or not there is a mixture of at least two kinds of heavy body as provided for in Category 3 evidence 29 of this Act).

Both composition are the same in that not less than two kinds of poly Este and heavy body are mixed and manufactured (in this regard, there is no dispute between the parties).

4) Composition 4

Composition 4 is related to the requirements (1), (2) and (3) , and the requirements (1) through (3) are specifically limited to the heat reduction rate in the direction of the maximum water reduction for all samples cut from films, the content ratio in the most secondary constituent unit, and the difference of physical value and the difference of physical value in the direction of the maximum water reduction rate in the direction of the largest water reduction for all samples cut from films.

The conditions for the establishment and measurement of the sample cutting division for each measurement are identical in quantity to the composition, the composition 4 is subdivided into sub-paragraphs (1) through (3) and are in comparison with the invention subject to confirmation, as set out in the following table (see evidence 3 of No. 29 of the Act, i.e., the "heat reduction rate in the direction of the largest flood axis" to 30 of the Act, i.e., the direction directly linked to the direction of the largest flood axis);

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A) Of the requirements (1), (2), and (3), as seen in the above table compared to the physical value of the rate of a vertical axis in line with the physical value of the above table among the requirements, the difference of the physical value of the physical value of the vertical axis in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the above table is the same as the corresponding composition of the challenged invention.

With regard to this, the plaintiff only states the upper limit of each physical value, among the requirements (1) through (3), the upper limit of each physical value, without stating the lower limit. Since the case of 【0% of the average value is technically impossible, each physical value should be set at the lower limit of each physical value, referring to the detailed description of the invention. In the case of each physical value reduction rate based on the value achieved in the process of executing the patented invention of this case, -3%--0.8%, +0.8%, +0.8%, +3%, in the case of the largest secondary components, 20%-0.4%, +0.4%, in the case of the largest secondary components, 0.4%-2%, '1%-0.3%, +0.5%, in the case of the vertical direction reduction rate, '1%-1%-0.3%, +1%-0.5% +1%, respectively, the response requirement of each challenged invention of this case is not included.

In order to solve these technical issues, the instant patent invention is limited to the range of the following: 0% of the average value (【3%, 20%, 【 1%) of the invention; 1,5% of the previous technology in its field; 4% of the invention; 0% of the invention’s maximum quantity to implement the invention; 0% of the invention’s maximum quantity to implement the invention; 0% of the patent invention’s maximum quantity to implement the invention; 0% of the patent invention’s maximum quantity to implement the invention; 0% of the patent invention’s total quantity to implement the invention; 0% of the patent invention’s maximum quantity to reduce its appearance; 0% of the patent invention’s maximum quantity to reduce its appearance; 0% of the patent invention’s maximum quantity to reduce its appearance; 0% of the patent invention’s maximum quantity to 0% of the patent invention’s appearance to 0% of the patent invention’s maximum quantity to 0% of the patent invention; and 0% of the patent invention’s maximum size to which does not arise from the invention of this case.

B) Preparation for the value of the physical properties at the rate of the vertical rupture among the requirements (3)

(1) 구성 4의 요건 (3) 중 직교방향 열 수축률은 7% 이하이고, 확인대상발명의 대응구성 중 직교방향 열 수축률은 -0.7~-0.4%이다. 최대 수축방향에 직교하는 방향의 열 수축률에 관하여 이 사건 특허발명 명세서의 발명의 상세한 설명에 '요건 (8)은 요건 (1)에 기재된 각 시료 절단부에서 10cm×10cm로 잘라낸 각 시료에 대해 85℃의 온수 중에 10초 침지해서 끌어 올리고, 이어서 25℃의 수중에 10초 침지해서 끌어 올렸을 때, 모든 시료의 최대 수축방향에 직교하는 방향의 열 수축률이 7% 이하이고, 이들 직교방향의 열 수축률의 평균치를 산출했을 때에 모든 시료의 직교방향 열 수축률이 이 평균치로부터 ±2% 이내의 범위에 들어가 있다고 하는 것이다. 이 요건 (8)은 특히 “세로 줄어듬"이라고 불리는 외관 불량을 일으키지 않는 필름에 관한 요건이다. 여기에서 세로 줄어듬이란 수축 후의 라벨의 길이가 고르게 되지 않는 것으로 페트병 등에 피복 수축시킨 후의 라벨의 상단 가장자리가 하향으로 만곡하는 라인을 그리거나 하단 가장자리가 상향으로 만곡 라인을 그리거나 하는 외관불량을 말한다. 이 최대 수축방향에 직교하는 방향의 열 수축률(직교방향 열수축률)이 7%를 초과하면 세로 줄어듬에 의한 외관불량이 발생하기 쉽다. 보다 바람직한 직교방향 열 수축률은 6% 이하, 더욱 바람직하게는 5% 이하이다'라고 기재되어 있고, 이에 의하면 이 사건 제1항 발명의 직교방향 열 수축률의 물성값인 7% 이하는 '세로 줄어듬' 그 자체를 의미하는 것이 아니라 '세로 줄어듬'이라는 외관 불량, 즉 수축 후의 라벨의 길이가 고르게 되지 않는 것으로 페트병 등에 피복 수축시킨 후의 라벨의 상단 가장자리가 하향으로 만곡 라인을 그리거나 하단 가장자리가 상향으로 만곡 라인을 그리는 외관불량을 일으키지 않는 필름에 관한 요건임은 앞에서 본 바와 같고, 또 직교방향 열 수축률이 7% 이하로서 그 절대치가 0%에 가까워질수록 바람직하고, 0%일 경우 가장 바람직하다는 점은 통상의 기술자에게 자명한 사항이며, 더 나아가 수축이 가장 바람직한 값인 0%를 넘어 () 영역으로 들어가 직교방향으로 다소 열팽창이 일어나는 경우로서 0%에 근접한 경우인 -0.7 -0.4%(확인대상발명의 대응구성 중 직교 방향 열 수축률) 정도에서도 '세로 줄어듬'에 의한 만곡 형상, 즉 라벨의 상단 가장자리가 하향으로 휘거나 하단 가장자리가 상향으로 휘는 만곡 형상으로 인한 외관 불량뿐만 아니라 그 반대의 만곡 형상, 즉 라벨의 상단 가장자리가 상향으로 휘거나 하단 가장자리가 하향으로 휘는 만곡 형상으로 인한 외관 불량도 발생하지 않으리라는 점 또한 통상의 기술자에게 자명하다. 따라서 '세로 줄어듬'이라는 외관 불량이 발생하지 않는 조건으로서 직교방향 열 수축률의 상한만을 7%로 한정하고, 그 하한을 0%로 제한하고 있지 아니한 이 사건 제1항 발명에서 ... 하한은 '세로 줄어듬'이라는 외관 불량이 발생하지 않는 범위 내에서 통상적으로 허용되는 범위로서의 () 영역도 포함하는 것으로 보는 것이 타당하므로, 그 범위 내에 있는 확인대상발명의 대응구성 중 직교방향 열 수축률인 -0.7~0.4%는 구성 4의 요건 (3) 중 직교방향 열 수축률인 7% 이하와 동일하다.

(2) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that the lower limit should not be zero percent since the lower limit of the reduction rate in the direct direction of the instant patent invention is unlimitedly expanded and the scope of the right is unclear if the lower limit of the reduction rate in the direct direction of the instant patent invention is considered to include the area (-).

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 8, 11 through 17 of Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 8, and 11-17, claims are limited to only the upper limit of the vertical chirical chirical chirical chirical chirical chirical chrheat film, as seen below, but in the process of implementation, a number of inventions for which the lower limit of the vertical chirical chral chirical chirical chral chirical chirical chirical chirrative chrhetorical chirical chirral chrhetorical chirical chral chrhetorical chiral chrhetoral

A person shall be appointed.

According to the above facts, even if the upper limit of the direct comparison rate is limited to the upper limit of the direct comparison rate in the claim of the invention of "heat chip", it can be seen that the direct comparison rate can have a value. Thus, even if the claim of the specification of the patented invention of this case restricts only the upper limit of the direct comparison rate, and the direct comparison rate in the detailed description of the invention does not explicitly state that the direct comparison rate cannot have a value of (-). Thus, it is reasonable to view that an ordinary technician is understood that the lower limit of the direct comparison rate in the specification of the patented invention of this case is included in (f) the upper limit of the direct comparison rate in the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the patent invention of this case, it is difficult to view that the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the upper limit of the use of the patented invention of this case can not be seen as the lower limit of the final limit of the supply.

The plaintiff's assertion that the claim 1 invention of this case is an invention of a product and the scope of right is not limited by the manufacturing method. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the claim 1 invention of this case has conflicting characteristics, such as expansion of heat and reduction of heat, due to the difference between the manufacturing method and the claim 1 invention of this case, has no effect on the judgment within the scope of the right to claim 1 invention of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

C. Book of the scope of rights

Therefore, since the invention subject to confirmation has the same composition as the invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, it belongs to the scope of the right to the Claim 1 of this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the trial decision of this case is legitimate in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judges and motion pictures

Judges Kim Gon-han

Judges Kim Jae-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.