204Heo6507 Nullification of Registration (specific)

Ortrochemical Co., Ltd.

The members of Ansan-si and Dong 489 - 5

Lee Jae-nam, a representative director;

Law Firm KEL, Attorney Kim Bo-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Hong-American et al.

1. Synad's repacting, humancopher;

Manu de-facting, Inc.)

U.S. Luxembourg 18940 New Zealand - Papua 660 Switzerland

E 205 (Suewow 205, 660 Nwow - Yardleleley Rod, Nwown;

Pennsyvania 18940, U. S. S. A.)

Representatives E. Ehomas E. Nowow ski)

2. Maccoa Ltd.;

Seoul Songpa-gu 50 - 2 upper floors of 8 upper buildings

Formality of the representative director

[Judgment of the court below]

The Defendants’ sub-agent, Patent Attorney Kim Jong-il

December 1, 2005

January 19, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 15, 2004 on the case No. 2586 on September 15, 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The process of the instant trial decision

The defendants filed a petition against the plaintiff for a trial on invalidation of registration with the purport that the patented invention of this case is not new according to the cited Invention 1, and the patent claim is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and thus the registration should be invalidated. During the trial, the plaintiff filed a request for correction to correct the claims of the Claims Nos. 1 and 5 of this case among the patented inventions of this case as shown in the attached Table 2. The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on it as 203Da2586, and deliberated on it as 2004.

9. 15. The case was tried to refer the defendants' request for a trial on the following grounds.

B. Patent of this case

Plaintiff’s patented invention of this case (registration number No. 398506, June 13, 2001, September 3, 2003)

the claim(s) is marked as an identification factor for petroleum products and on the method of detecting such identification factor among petroleum products. "The identification factor for petroleum products, the marking of petroleum products using it, and the method of detecting petroleum products." The claim(s) are as shown in attached Table 1.

(c) Cited inventions;

Attached Form 3.

D. A summary of the reasoning of the instant trial decision (1)

The claim for correction of this case was made by changing COR3 and -OR4 to COR3 and COR4 in the chemical form 1 of the invention of this case. (1) the amendment was made by converting COR3 and COR4 to COR4, (2) the amendment was reduced to CO5 to CO3, R3, and R4 to CO, specified R to methyl, and (2) the amendment was made by specifying Ra to Metho, R was made to ethyl (1), and "claim 1" and "explosion" of the Claim 5 of this case as "(1)" and "explosion to respond respectively to the amendment was partially changed (3). (1) the amendment was made by integrating the detailed description of the invention and the scope of the patent claim; (2) the amendment was made by reducing the scope of the claims; and (3) the amendment was not made by either a new correction or alteration of the claims, and it was not immediately made by the amendment or alteration of the claims.

However, in comparison between the instant Claim No. 1 invention and the instant Claim No. 2 on the written request for correction, the comparable invention No. 2 states that the Z may form the Z with L or R ton, and the R’s “R” is specified as either the line or type of 1 to 22 of the carbon carbon, and the instant Claim No. 1 invention on the written request for correction is an invention of the subordinate concept of the comparable invention No. 2. The instant claim No. 1 invention on the written request for correction is an invention of the comparable invention No. 2, but only the dth Ethm compound of c1 to 8 known, but is ordinarily included in the execution of the comparable invention No. 31 to 8 known invention No. 2. The specification of the comparable invention No. 2 actively starts to realize the characteristics of the dsteher compound of c1 to 8 as an distinctive compound, and thus, the new invention cannot be seen as identical to the instant Claim No. 5 to the instant Claim No. 1 to the narrow invention No. 2.

In addition, when comparing the instant Claim No. 1 invention and the comparable invention No. 1 on the correction request statement, both inventions are the same for the purpose of the invention, and in the technical composition, the instant Claim No. 1 invention on the correction request statement is identical, and in comparison with the instant Claim No. 1 invention on the technical composition, the last part of the color chemical compound is alkrastrophs, and the instant Claim No. 1 invention is an alkrastrokes, or is an alkylfstrophs, with the structure of Cl. However, there is a difference in the case that the instant Claim No. 1 invention is an alkrastrokes, or is an alkylfstrophs, with the structure of Cl. However, the cited Invention No. 1 starts to be useful in all, and the technology converting the alkle to Alkstrokes is easy in light of the general technological sense of the relevant industry. Therefore, there is no difficulty in the difference in the technical composition, and it is also identical to the instant Claim No. 2 through 5.

Therefore, a claim on a correction request is identical with a comparable invention 2, or has no inventive step from comparable inventions 1, and thus, a patent cannot be granted at the time of patent application. Thus, the claim on the correction request cannot be accepted

(2) Part on the grounds for invalidation

The part of the detailed description of the patent claim and the invention of the instant patent invention is used as a coloring chemical. However, the patent invention of this case is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, since the patent application of this case is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and is recognized as an invention of the Eteph compound in consideration of the detailed description of the invention, the patent application of this case is the same as that of the comparable invention 2, and is recognized as an invention of the Eteph compound in accordance with the description of the patent application, and it is recognized as an invention of the Eteph compound in accordance with the description of the patent application, because R3 and R4 of the comparable invention can be identified as hydrogen, and thus, the patented invention of this case is identical to the comparable invention 1, because there is no description of the specification, and it is publicly known prior to the application, and its registration should be invalidated because it falls under Articles 42(4) and 29(1) of the Patent Act.

[Evidence: Evidence of No. 1 to 3 and No. 7 to 10 (Evidence No. 9 shall be the same as Evidence No. 1, and Evidence No. 10 shall be the same as evidence No. 2)]

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. (1) Grounds for revocation of the plaintiff's claim for correction (1) of this case are that the detailed description of the invention does not conflict with the claims, in light of the entire description, the correction of the clerical error that makes it correct, reduces the scope of the ventilation, and there is no change in the purpose or technical idea, thereby reflecting any change in the objective or technical idea, and it does not constitute a substantial change in the scope of the claims, and it does not constitute a substantial change in the scope of claims, since it is not likely to cause a loss to a third party on the basis of the content of the invention.

(2) While the chemical formula of comparable invention 2 contains a very wide range of compounds, the specification is that the number of alkyl Ekyl Ekyl Ekzzzers stated only three (3) alkyl Ekyl Ekyl Empzers “Aekyl Emphere” and other compounds are less likely to be predicted and its substance is unclear. Thus, since other compounds are in an unexplic area where the substance is unclear, a correction request is requested due to the above virtual compounds that have not been actually syntheticly synthetic, it does not lose the newness of the stepher compound in the claim No. C5-7 alkerm compounds, and furthermore, among C17 Alkzher compounds, c5-7 alkherm compounds have significant effects, such as employment degree, color, and stepher, and in particular, the Plaintiff’s distinctive product No. 35, is compared to the Defendant Product C3, and the patent claim No. 2 is more transparent than that of the Plaintiff’s product.

(3) The claim(s) in the claim(s) of the correction request does not include the Cream system of comparable invention 1, or because the compound and its structure are entirely different from the compound(s) of comparable invention 1 because the compound is entirely different from the structure of comparable invention 5 through 7 Alkyl Ekymher in lieu of the chill of comparable invention 1, and it cannot be easily derived from the non-obviousness and non-obviousness on the ground that significant action effects in the meltage, color, smell, etc. have commenced or are not revealed. Thus, upon the request of correction, the chemical formula indicated as “Ekym” is not immediately included in the specification of the patented invention(s) of this case’s patented invention(s) at the request of the Intellectual Property Tribunal for correction, the first statement in the specification of the patented invention of this case was removed. (5) The Intellectual Property Tribunal submitted an additional statement to the parties by 200 on August 23, 2004, and the Plaintiff submitted an additional statement to the parties by 2004.

9. 15. The plaintiff's assertion and evidence were not sufficiently examined, and the trial decision on invalidation of the patented invention of this case was unlawful.

B. The Defendants’ assertion (1) The chemical compound 1 indicated in the initial patent claim of the instant patent invention is entirely different from hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hyd hys.

3. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the determination on the claim for correction of the case is to be changed from the chemical formula 1 of the detailed description of the Claim 1 of this case and the Claim 1 of this case to the Estete (OR and -OR4) to the Estete (COR and COR) (1). Paragraph 1 of this case to the chemical formula 1 of the detailed description of the Claim 1 of this case and the Claim 1 of this case to the Stetetetero (hereinafter referred to as the "Correction"), and the amendment of Paragraph 1 of this case to the "part 1 of the amended description" and Paragraph 1 of this case to the "part 1 of the amended description" and Paragraph 1 of this case to the "part 1" of the amended description to the effect that the hydrogen, low-sufficiency, h2 to the hydrogen, or CH3, h3, and R4 to the hydrogen, or C1 to 12 to the C5 to 7 know, respectively.

(1) The correction (1), 2) The chemical formula 1 compound in the detailed description of the invention referred to in paragraph (1) of this case and the corresponding invention (as above, R shows hydrogen, low-level, or halogen, R i, R, R 3 and R 4 are identical or different from each other, and the hydrogen or C1 to 12 know-how are expressed respectively in the form of correction).

Since the following correction is made after the correction, (from these forms, the R3 and R4 are identical or different to each other, and representing C5 to 7 Alkh, respectively) this shall be summarized as a "a compound with an air ventilation of alkyl Ekyl Ekyl (O-C1 to 12 Alkyl)" in the side chain "a compound with an air ventilation of alkyl Ekyl Ekyl (O -OCO-C5 to 7 Alkyl)".

(2) Article 133-2(1) of the Patent Act as to whether a correction is a reduction of the scope of claims or a correction of a clerical error, the respondent in the invalidation trial under Article 133(1) of the Act shall not be

Article 47(3) of the Act provides that a request for correction of the specification or drawing(s) of a patented invention may be made within the specified period only in cases falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 47(3) of the Act. Article 47(3) of the Patent Act provides that “Where a request for correction of the specification or drawing(s) is reduced, where a clerical error is corrected, and where a clerical error is clearly stated in the specification or drawing(s) and where it is clear that the clerical error is a clerical error in the specification or drawing(s), the clerical error is corrected in the original correct entry. It includes that where a clerical error is clearly stated in the specification or drawing(s) or the clerical error is not clearly stated in the scope of the claim(s) and where there is a discrepancy or inconsistency in the detailed description(s) of the invention(s) and the scope of the claim(s) are not inconsistent with or inconsistent with each other(s).

First, examining the first specification of the invention in this case, the detailed description of the invention is presented: (a) the description of the manufacturing method of the chemical compound (from No. 2 to No. 3) at the hyd when the hydroids were included in the description of the manufacturing method of the chemical compound (from No. 2 of the evidence No. 12 to No. 2) and (b) the hydroids-the chemical compound at the hydroids when the hydroids were included in the description of the invention; (c) on the other hand, the main text of the detailed description of the invention "The chemical-type 1 chemical compounds used in the invention is clearly indicated as "the hydroids identification method" (the 3th 17th th 5th th of the evidence No. 2); and (d) the hydroids (for example 2 to c. 3, 34 c. hyroid's reference in C.).

In light of the fact that the instant patent invention has been manufactured in 2 through 5 and is commonly claimed based on the process, etc. supported by the detailed description of the invention, it is reasonable to see that the instant patent invention has a substantial substance of the invention in a compound exchanged with Alkyl Ekyl Ekyl (hereinafter referred to as 3, 4) for reference, and that the process of identification is presented by a compound with an Akyl Ekyl Ekyl (hereinafter referred to as 3, 3, 4) for reference, and that the substance of the chemical invention is the process and process of manufacture, implementation, etc. of the invention as an study of experiment and analysis, and therefore, the scope of the instant patent invention must be claimed based on the process of implementation, etc. described in the detailed description of the invention. As such, it is reasonable to see that the instant patent invention has a substantial substance of the invention in a compound exchanged with Alkyl Eker (hereinafter referred to as 'O3,OR' and 4) of the instant patent invention, and that it constitutes a correction of CO paragraph (1) and 3) of the amendment.

(2) Matters to be corrected are to delete a part of the ventilation among diverse air ventilation and reduce the scope of the carbon, and to delete a part of the components that are substantially selectively selected. Thus, the scope of claims under Article 47(3)1 of the Patent Act is reduced.

(3) The correction is the case where “ Claim 1” is corrected to “a clerical error clearly written in light of the entire specification” in paragraph (1) and the correction is made to “a clerical error clearly written in light of the entire specification” and Article 47(3)2 of the Patent Act.

Therefore, the claim for correction of this case constitutes a case where the scope of the claim under Article 47(3) of the Patent Act cited under Article 133-2(1) of the Patent Act is reduced and the error is corrected.

(3) Whether the correction is a substantial expansion or modification of the scope of the claim

Article 136(3) of the Patent Act, which applies to the correction claim of this case under Article 3(3) of the Addenda of the Patent Act as amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001, provides that the correction of the specification or drawings, shall not be practically expanded or modified. The purport of this provision is that if the correction is permitted in a substantial expansion or modification of the scope of the patent, the act which was lawful before the correction is unlawful after the correction is made, which would undermine legal stability. The amendment of the scope of patent is made means that the purpose and effect are added to a new technology composition that is different from that of the invention, thereby impairing the identity of the invention. In addition, in determining whether the scope of patent is a case of expansion or modification of the scope of patent, it is reasonable to determine whether the patent can be granted at the time of the patent application concerned, including the detailed description of the invention, rather than in comparison with the formal description of the scope of patent application itself, and where it is corrected as such, it is reasonable to determine whether the patent can be granted at the time of the patent application concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 19Hu.

(1) As seen earlier, ① A compound with an air ventilation of alkyl Este (O - C1 to 12 Alkle) in the chain of the Claim 1 of this case and the detailed description of the invention, “A compound with an air ventilation of alkyl Este (OCO-C5 to 7 Alkle)” is “a compound with an air ventilation of alkyl Este (OCO-C5 to 7 Alkle)”. Even if it is corrected in light of other description of the specification, it is possible to see that the chemical compound 1, as an obvious compound, is a compound of the Claim 1 of this case before the correction and its detailed description of the e.g., the e., the e., chemical compound prior to the correction, which is a combination of No. 1 of the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., chemical compound prior to the correction and the e., the e., the e., chemical compound prior to the correction.

(4) The claim(s) of the instant Claim(1) after the correction as to whether the claim(s) in the written request for correction can be independently patented or not is new and non-obviousness in relation to comparable invention(s) 2. The claim(s) of the instant Claim(s) after the correction is one of the chemical-type 1 as a coloring agents, indicating petroleum products by including the non-biphenyl 1’s non-chlorinated chloropoenculacide bening agents, and (s) adding the chemical-type 2(s) chemical-type chropochromocos in coloring agents, and then is the marking of the petroleum products and the identification method of the petroleum products that consist of measuring the degree of luminous intensity caused by the occurrence.

Since the general-type compound, which is presented as a distinctive chemical compound in the comparable invention 2, has a variety of ventilation definitions, it reaches a considerable wide range. Among them, if it is identified that it is most appropriate to prepare for the distinctive chemical compound of the instant Claim No. 1 (Earto-C57 Alstrophe’s C57 Alphe’s compounds) after the correction, R’s chemical formula C (O) R is a chemical formula C (O), and R’s chemical formula c (O) m is a chain or powder mar, and R is both hydrogen through X, X, X, and X1 are all hydrogens, and if X and X form CHB compounds after the correction, it can be seen that the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 is identical to that of the instant Claim No. 2 after the correction.

In the comparable invention 2, the 4th class alkylaluminium fishery freight used as a coloring chemical compound is substantially identical to the chemical-type 2 chemical-type chemical-type chemical-type compounds used as a coloring chemical in the invention of the instant Claim 1 after the correction, and specifically, the structure of the instant Claim 1 invention after the correction is identical to the comparison invention 2.

In addition, both inventions are inventions designed to provide a method of marking and distinguishing petroleum products by measuring the absorption level, etc. using compounds that can be used as coloring agents (identifications) and compounds that can be used as coloring agents. Thus, the occurrence of the instant Claim No. 1 after correction, composition is the same as comparable invention No. 2.

Therefore, the Claim No. 1 invention after correction is included in the scope of comparable invention No. 2, and it is not new.

In addition, the instant Claim Nos. 2 and 5 inventions are limited to the marking method of petroleum products using the same compound as the instant Claim Nos. 1 inventions and their marked petroleum products. As such, the instant Claim Nos. 1 inventions do not have newness by comparable Invention 2, as in the instant Claim No. 2, and the instant Claim Nos. 3 inventions added a composition of a non-breutable melting, or the mixture thereof, which is subordinate to the instant Claim Nos. 1 and 2 inventions. The instant Claim Nos. 4 inventions added a composition of the form, the color of which is used for non-water melting, which is the subordinate to the instant Claim No. 1 inventions, was added to the instant Claim Nos. 1. 5-27 to 28, and the instant Claim No. 57-26-2, 34 and 4 of the instant Claim No. 9).

(5) Whether the claim of the correction request constitutes a selective invention

The plaintiff argues that the patented invention of this case after the correction constitutes a selective invention in relation to the cited invention 2, and thus, it is sufficient to clearly state that the elements of the patented invention are new and non-obviousness. Thus, the so-called selective invention that all or part of the subordinate concepts included in the above upper concepts are stated as a higher concept, first, if the preceding invention does not specifically start the subordinate concepts comprising the selective invention, second, if all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have effects different from those of the preceding invention in quality, or there is no qualitative difference in quality, or if there is a significant difference in quality, it is sufficient to clearly state the above effects compared to the preceding invention. The detailed description of the selective invention does not state the comparative experiment materials that can confirm the significant effects of the selective invention, and if the effects of the selective invention are doubtful, it is sufficient to concretely claim and prove the effects of the selective invention by the method of submitting the detailed comparative test materials (Supreme Court Decision 201Hu2740 delivered on April 25, 2003).

First, examining whether the selective invention has been specifically launched in the Prior Invention 2 after the correction, in order to determine whether the selective invention has been specifically launched in the Prior Invention 2, not only whether or not there exists a literal indication as to the selective invention in the Prior Invention, but also whether or not a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can directly recognize or derive the existence of selective invention from the Prior Invention on the basis of the technical common sense at the time of the application, or whether or not there is a substantial difference between the mode of implementation and the mode of selective invention described in the Prior Invention 2, among the compounds actually embodied through the implementation of the specification, the prior invention 2 presents a wide range of chemical formula, but it is not the nearest composition of the instant Claim 1 after the correction, and thus, it is reasonable to determine whether or not there is a detailed indication as to the selective invention in the Prior Invention 2, and it is reasonable to determine whether or not there is a considerable difference between 1 to 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1.

However, the specification of the comparable invention 2 is limited to CI-8 to be a desirable example in the description of the chemical ventilationR in the relevant technical field, and is specific examples, other than C3 to be three Alphom, it is desirable that CG ethyl, C. ethyl, Alkylethyl, C. ethyl, alkylethyl, and alkylethyl, etc. are the same as CG Ra for the facilitation of the synthetic process, etc. In addition, it is desirable that dynacing R is the same as C. In order to facilitate the synthetic process, etc., and such dynac compound is indicated as an excellent solution and stability in the relevant technical field (see, e.g., the dynaculation definition described in evidence 5 pages A10, and if the person has ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field, it can be directly produced from the description of the comparable invention 2 in the specification of the relevant technical field, and directly produced C1-8, 8444 mar, 15 mar compound.

Since the subordinate composition, which is a subordinate concept, has been specifically launched in comparable invention 2.

In addition, the cited invention 2 contains three reactions to add Akyl Ekzher’s Alkher’s Alkher’s Alkher’s Alkher’s Alkher’s 3rd Espher’s (C3 Alknzher’s compounds). In addition, the comparable invention 2 indicated detailed examples of implementation on an Alkhher’s sub-spher’s sub-spher’s sub-spher’s sub-spher’s sub-spher’s sub-sphere’s sub-spher’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sect, and the relevant sub-phere’s sub-sphere’s sub-sphere’s sub-s.

Next, after the correction, Austria - The whole of the compounds 35 to 7 Alstrokes’ c5 to 30% of the instant Claim No. 1 is examined as to whether there are differences in quality or quantitative differences in effect with comparable invention No. 2. The evidence No. 17 is a test data comparing the external appearance of the identification chemical, which is included in Claim No. 1 invention of this case after the correction, in the direct chain of the c5 Alstrokestrophe’s c5 Alstrophe’s c. Estrophe’s chemical compounds included in Claim No. 1 invention of this case, and direct average c3 Alstrophe’s chemical compounds included in Cited Invention No. 2, and the 30% degree of c. 18 was measured with the concentration of 30% of the divestrophe’s melte, which is directly included in the instant Claim No. 1 invention of this case - 30 Estrophe’s e.

However, in the detailed description of the invention of this case after the correction, identification materials are added to the petroleum products in a quantity of 1 pm through 1,000 pm, and both 1 and 2 are measured with a concentration of 10 pm. The evidence No. 13 is used as a specification of identification materials currently being used, and it is indicated that in Kerose, 10 pm of liquid liquid in color is high, and in addition to identification materials, 10 pm of 10 pp in color and 10 pm of apparatus can be static and proper quantity of apparatus. The evidence No. 14 also shows that the Plaintiff’s content of identification materials in measuring the luminous change is 10 pm of luminous change is 10 pm. Thus, the concentration of petroleum products used for commercial use is likely to be 10 pm normally.

Considering this point, Gap evidence Nos. 17 and 18 is nothing more than the actual use terms and conditions of identification, or (30% concentration) is measured in the high concentration terms and conditions (1,00 pm) of the theater (1,00 pm). Only it is possible to verify the fact that the C3 Alkzine compounds included in the Claim Nos. 1 invention of this case are somewhat different in high concentration terms and in the color of external appearance and in the mixedness with Kerosin, it is difficult to prove that there is no other evidence to support this.

Moreover, in the instant Claim 1 invention after the correction, including a large number of compounds, such as c6 Alpha and CG Alkyl Eszher compounds, various molecule C5 Alphazher compounds, C6 Alphaza, C6 Alphaza, C, and Alkyl Eszher compounds, in addition to c5 Alphaza (in the instant Claim 1 invention, it is limited to c5 to 7 Alphaza, and there is no limit as to c5-7 Alphaza, and it is interpreted that all these compounds are included in the instant Claim 1 invention). There is no evidence that there is significant effect as an identification agent or that there is no reasonable ratification of these compounds.

The Plaintiff asserted that the high-quality and water quality of not less than 35§¯ are remarkably different from the low-level and high-quality and water quality of the C1 to 4 Alkyl is considerably different, and that the characteristics of the CG Alk and CS Alkyl are clearly different from the definitions of the CG Alkyl and the CS Alkyl Kom, etc. As such, limiting the amount of carbon of the remaining alkyl is limited to c5 to 7 Alklele of the most desirable water as an identification system, and that there is a critical significance in limiting the amount of carbon. However, after the correction, the chemical compounds of the Claim 1 invention of this case have characteristics of its mother structure as well as the measured Alklele, so it can be understood as its compound’s characteristics.

As can not be seen, it cannot be viewed as a whole, and its characteristics should be assessed as a whole, which combines nuom with nuoms with Mooms. As the whole compound is combined with Maoms C5-7 Aloms, it cannot be viewed that its characteristics differ, such as a change in aloms, as the whole compound is in combination with aloms. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, it is difficult to say that the chemical compounds of Claim 1 after the correction are specifically launched in the comparable invention 2, as well as that there is a significant effect compared to the comparable invention 2. Thus, the instant Claim 1 invention after the correction is not new by the comparable invention 2, and it does not constitute a selective invention. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s selective invention assertion cannot be accepted.

(6) Ultimately, the claim for correction of this case constitutes a case where the scope of the claim is reduced or the clerical error is corrected, but the claim is substantially modified, and the claim for correction cannot be patented at the time of the patent application due to the lack of newness and non-obviousness by comparable invention 2. Thus, the claim for correction of this case is not permissible.

B. Determination on grounds for invalidation

Inasmuch as the instant claim for correction is not permissible due to its illegality, it is examined as to whether there is a ground for invalidation of registration based on the specification before correction (1) newness

In comparison with the invention No. 1 of this case prior to the correction, the claims of the Claim No. 1 of this case are ① marking petroleum products to include the chemical 1’s non-chlorinated chlorinated elements as coloring agents, adding the chemical formula No. 2 of the chemical 2 to coloring agents, and is composed of measuring the luminous intensity of the starting point, ② marking of petroleum products and identification methods.

Among the compounds used as a distinctive chemical compound in the comparable invention 1, the compound most appropriate in comparison with the composition distinctive chemical compound of the instant Claim 1 is the chemical compound. Among the evolution definition of the distinctive chemical compound indicated in the above chemical formula, Rio is c1-8 known, and Rss and Rss are alines, among the chemical compounds indicated in the above chemical formula, the compound of the instant Claim 1 is identical to the chemical compound of which Rs and R2 is c1-8, and R3 and R4, so the compound of the instant Claim 1 is identical to the chemical formula 1 of the instant Claim 1, and thus, the compound of the instant Claim 1 is identical to the chemical compound of which Rs and R2 are c1-8, and R3 and R4.

The Ri, R2, R3, and R4, among the R1 or R4 of the color chemical compounds indicated in the general formula as indicated in the comparable invention 1, and the air ventilation definition against R5, are identical or different, or different, R5, hydrogen or alker compounds are identical or different from each other in the composition, and the Ra, Rb, R and R and ald, among the air ventilation definition against the chemical formula 2 in the composition of the instant Claim 1, are the same as c1 to 12, c1 to c12, and c1 to 8, respectively, and the color chemical compounds of the instant Claim 1 in the composition of the instant Claim 1 are the same as that of hydrogen or c1 to 8, and thus, the color chemical compounds in the composition of the instant Claim 1 are identical with the color chemical compounds of the comparable invention 1.

In addition, both inventions are related to the marking and identifying method of petroleum products by measuring both compounds that can be used as distinctive agents and compounds that can be used as coloring agents, and their smoking intensity, etc.

Therefore, the Claim No. 1 invention of this case is not new by the comparable invention No. 1.

In addition, the instant Claim Nos. 2 and 5 inventions only claim the marking method of petroleum products using the same compound as the instant Claim Nos. 1 inventions and their marked petroleum products. As such, as to the instant Claim No. 1 inventions, the instant Claim Nos. 3 inventions do not have newness by comparable Invention No. 1. The instant Claim Nos. 1 and 2 inventions added a composition of a non-brupted melting or its mixtures, which is subordinate to the instant Claim No. 1 inventions, of which the coloring agents were used in non-watering mixtures. The instant Claim Nos. 4 inventions added a composition of the form used in non-watering mixtures, which is the subordinate to the instant Claim No. 1 inventions, and all the non-saluting and non-saluting melting 1 were initiated in comparable Invention No. 5-27-28, and 57-26-2, 4, and 34 of the instant Claim No. 1.

(2) Whether or not the entry is not entered

Furthermore, with respect to the lack of specification of the instant patent invention prior to the correction, the foregoing chemical formula 1 to Z or -OR (or OR4) stated in paragraph (1) of this case prior to the correction indicate either -OH or -OC1 to 12 KH, so chemical compound 1 can be deemed to have been identified as "a chemical compound with hydr or alker to hydroid". All compounds manufactured under paragraphs 2 through 5 of this case for reference to the instant patent invention are not only a chemical compound with alkyl Eker, but also 1 and 2 as an example of using it as an identification chemical, and as an example of using it in paragraph (1) of this case, the chemical compound of this case contains no indication in the specification of the instant patent invention: (i) 1 to 1 to 2 marsen; and (ii) 1 to e.g., the chemical compound of this case had no indication in the specification of the instant patent invention.

Therefore, the claim of the Claim No. 1 prior to correction is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and is not in violation of Article 42(4) of the Patent Act.

The inventions of this case are both subordinate claims of Claim 1 or inventions of this case, which are characterized by the use of chemical formula 1, as in Claim 1 inventions of this case or as in Claim 1 inventions of this case. As long as Claim 1 invention of this case has a lack of specification of claims concerning Chemical 1's chemical compound, the invention of this case is also deemed to be in violation of Article 42 (4) of the Patent Act. Accordingly, the patented invention of this case prior to correction is not new by Claim 1, but not only the patented invention of this case is not new by Claim 1 but also the indication of claims.

C. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion on notification of the scheduled time for the closure of the trial

The plaintiff asserts that there was an error in the procedure of not sufficiently examining the plaintiff's assertion and evidence by rendering the decision of this case invalidating the registration of the patented invention of this case before the deadline for submission of additional documents by sending the notice of scheduled time for the closure of the trial. However, the above notification of scheduled time for the closure of the trial by the Intellectual Property Tribunal is merely a voluntary procedure conducted by the Intellectual Property Tribunal in order to raise the possibility of the party's prediction about the time for the closure of the trial, not a procedure prescribed by the Patent Act, and merely a voluntary procedure conducted by the Intellectual Property Tribunal. Thus, the decision of this case itself cannot be deemed to be immediately unlawful. In addition, the written opinion of the trial on September 20, 2004, which the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not adopt, was merely a repetition of the previous arguments and submitted new evidence. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for correction of this case is not only a substantial modification of the claim, but also it is not possible to obtain a patent at the time of the application for patent, and the patent invention of this case before correction is not new by the cited Invention 1, but also the registration of this case is null and void because it is not possible to describe the claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the trial decision of this case is just, and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Dong-dong

Judges Doing-type

Judges Kim Jae-hwan

Attached 1 Claim for Patent invention of this case

1. Petroleum which contains a non-slorinated chlorinated chlorinated chlorate chromosomes below as a coloring agents;

Products are marked, and chemical-type 2 tetrazymium deriveds are added to them as coloring agents.

marks and identification methods of petroleum products, consisting of coloring and measuring the smoking intensity;

("Invention 1 of this case"

[Chemical-type 5]

(For these purposes, R represents, L, L2, R3 and R4 represent hydrogen, low-level, or low-level, and each other.

The same or different kind of hydrogen or GI-12 Alkyms are expressed respectively.

【Chemical Food2】

(In the above-mentioned, Ra, Rb, Re- and Rd are or different from each other, respectively, C1 to 12 Alga, special

A person shall be appointed.

- Meethyl, ethyl, propop, ethyl, or benent, and Recin 1 within hydrogen or carbon source self-denunciation;

b. 8 Alkmons c. c.

2. The features of including non-chlorinated biphenyls of chemical formula 1 as coloring agents;

manner of marking petroleum products (hereinafter referred to as the "Invention 2 of this case").

3. In case of paragraph 1 or 2, the coloring agents of chemical 1 shall be in the same direction as the natural siren and the balthale;

Alcoholic content, nitrophoid, N, N-dimethyl et al., such as hydrogen, benent alcohol, and chloroolol et al.

Non-balutism, such as oil chlodide, N, N-dimethylamide or 1- methylamide, or

by way of specifying that they are added to petroleum products in the form of melting them in their mixtures:

See paragraph 3 inventions, e.g.

4.In the case of paragraph 1 of this Article, in the case of a color chemical derived derived 2 tetrazine deriveds shall have the direction-based alcoholic content;

It is characterized by using in the form of non-water melting paper, such as glycol and glycol ether.

Method of this case ("Invention 4 of this case")

5. As a coloring agents of non-chlorinated chlorinated chlorinated chlosopha of the chemical type described in paragraph (1) of this Article;

petroleum products containing, marked (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 5 invention”).

Attached 2 Request for Correction of Patent invention of this case (Evidence A7, 8)

1. Trinated 1 of the chemical formula which is a coloring agents and includes a non-schlorinated chlorinated chromosome;

As a color agent, the chemical 2 tetrazympins in which they are marked, and the chemical kymnasium derived therefrom.

In addition, the signs of petroleum products and their distinctives consisting of the coloring and the measuring of the smoking intensity;

The Act (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”).

【Chemical Type 1】

(For these purposes, R3 and R4 shall be identical or different from each other, and shall indicate C5 to 7 Alkh, respectively)

[Chemical 21]

(In the above-mentioned, Ra, Rb, R- and R-D are or different from each other, and each of them shall be subject to C1-12 Alga, special

A person shall be appointed.

- Meethyl, ethyl, propop, ethyl or benent, and Recognition 1

through 8 alkylmons c.

between 2 and 4. (attached Form 1)

5. Containing a non-sphenyl 1 of the chemical formula referred to in paragraph (1) as coloring agents;

of this case (as referred to in paragraph (5) of this case).

Attached 3 Invention 3

1. Invention 1 (Patent Number 5, 672, and 182 registered on September 30, 1997, the US Patent Gazette, No. 9)

The term "Inventions on the identification of petroleum products and methods of detection thereof", such as the following chemical formula III, etc.

Using a chemical formula identifying the same petroleum product, and in which the chemical formula of class 4 Alkyl aluminium is fluorous.

used by the corporation, and in the form of the corporation, the luminous intensity or liquid luminous intensity of the corporation, or of the absorption of the corporation.

The major content of the marking and identification method of the petroleum products, with the characteristics of measuring by using them;

is called. ...

nan

In this context, R either know-how containing 1 to 8 carbon sources or Alcocks; Rs and Ry shall:

Lio is a sign of hydrogen, alk or Alhock, and Rio is a voluntary combination of bro-ROMs, salt or hydrogen)

A person shall be appointed.

[In this context, Ri, R2, R3 and R4 are identical or different eggs or events, and R5 are hydrogen, or

A person shall be appointed.

【Akkyl (Akyl)】

2. Invention 2 (WO 01/ 000, No. 10561, No. 10)

fluoring or ginging a variety of products such as petroleum fuel or melting; or

Dymless compounds and related products and methods, such as the following chemical formula:

use petroleum products as the identification agents, use class 4 alkylaluminium marine cargo as the color agents, and in addition, use them as the color agents.

Using luminous or liquid luminous intensity or liquid cromatic dynasium dynasium dynasium, dynasium or dynasium;

The main contents of the marks and identification methods of petroleum products with characteristics are the marks and identification methods of petroleum products.

【Court” and thereto are independently interchangeed or unregistered biphenyls, spawnized or unexploded, respectively.

A person shall be appointed.

L 1 to 22 L 1 to 22 L 1 to 22 L 1 to 22 L 1 to 33

R means the source of hydrogen or chemical C (O) R (referred to as “R” here means the source of hydrogen or within one year.

indicate 22 direct chains or decentralizations with 22 elements of carbon. R means the number.

1 to 12 microscopes, 1 to 12 microscopes, 1 to 12

22(1)(1)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2

It represents biphenyl or bethyl. The Z shall represent the source of hydrogen or more desirable, AP or R.

In combination, it indicates the flag of the source who form Saltonia.

nan

A person shall be appointed.

[R] The term "R" indicates a direct chain or powder chain with 1 to 22 carbon sources. R also indicates hydrogen chains.

R (O) R, here, has the source of hydrogen or 1 to 22 carbon sources.

x - X x x x x x x x x x x x x

- hahabits with 1 to 6 carbon sources, with 1 to 6 carbon sources.

It indicates Alccock time, hambling time, hamolym, Kamhip acid, and Kamhip acid stezher.