[1] Whether the scope of the right to the patented invention falls within the scope of the right to the patented invention in a case where the (A) invention compared to the patented invention is made only with the publicly known technology, or where the party can easily implement it from the publicly known

[2] The case holding that the invention does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention on the ground that the (A) invention on the part of agriculture can easily be described from the publicly known art

[3] The case holding that the scope of the patent right of a patented invention cannot be claimed against the (A) invention, which formed IMs only on the side of the side of the side of the side of the application process and the gold speech principle

[1] Article 135 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 135 of the Patent Act / [3] Article 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Hu568 delivered on October 16, 1990 (Gong1990, 2276) Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1750 delivered on November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3855), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu710 delivered on October 30, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2618)

Dod new Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Maximum Min-man (Patent Attorney White-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2002Heo1218 delivered on September 6, 2002

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In determining whether an invention falls under the scope of a patent right of a patented invention, in a case where an invention compared to a patented invention is made only with an publicly known technology, or where a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field of the invention (hereinafter referred to as a "party business operator") can easily implement the invention from an publicly known technology, the necessity of comparison with the patented invention does not fall under the scope of the patent right of the patented invention (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu1750, Nov. 11, 1997; 99Hu710, Oct. 30, 2001, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that (A) inventions conducted by the plaintiff were identical in their technical field in comparison with the technologies published in the Patent Gazette No. 6-704 of January 18, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "human invention No. 1"), since both inventions are related to agricultural corrosion; (b) the composition of the parts is identical in the singing process; (c) the number of parts is identical within the scope described in 1, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., g., e. 1, 1994; and (d) the e.g., e., e., e. 1, e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g. 1, e., 97. g., 94.

According to the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the facts found in the judgment after compiling the adopted evidences, the court below determined that the patented invention of this case and the (a) invention of this case form the same location as that of the scambling, the scambling method of the scambling, the material of the scambling, and the same distance and distance between the scambling is identical, and (a) invention of this case is about 0.8 to 1.5m in the thickness of the scambling, and there is a difference between (a) invention of this case and 0.1 to 0.79m in the manufacturing process of the scambling, but it is within the scope of error that can occur in the manufacturing process of the scambling, but (a) invention of this case form only the same location as that of the scambling, and thus, (b) invention of this case constitutes only the scambling process of the scam formation of the patent invention of this case.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)