[1] Standard for determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art documents

[2] In a case where Gap filed a petition for a invalidation trial against Eul of a patented invention named "digital temperature controler" on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patented invention is denied, and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board accepted Gap's claim, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the ordinary technician can easily make inventions by combining comparable inventions, and thus the nonobviousness of the patented invention is denied

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284 decided September 6, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1582)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Shin Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 201Heo3209 Decided December 14, 2011

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art references, the inventive step of the patent invention concerned is denied in cases where it is recognized that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily combine it in light of the technical level at the time of the application of the patent invention in question, technical awareness, basic tasks of the relevant technical field, development tendency, demand of the relevant industry, etc., even though the cited technology is presented in prior art literature, or the motive, etc., that the cited technology can be combined with the relevant patent invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.).

2. In light of the above legal principles and records, we examine whether the inventive step of the claim 1 (hereinafter “claim 1 invention of this case”) of the patented invention (patent registration number omitted) of this case, the title of which is “digital temperature controler,” is inventive step.

First, in the original inquiry into the instant Claim No. 1, the component 1 is comprised of “a control unit that controls “the temperature detection room, the location of the establishment to detect the temperature, the KIKO to input the user’s order, and the temperature and the current temperature from the temperature detection room, which indicates the temperature, etc., which is detected from the temperature detection room, and the current temperature, etc., to be displayed on the display book, and controls the supply of voltage to stove the boiler.” At the time of the original inquiry, the elements 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 was initiated as they are “the temperature reduction center, the establishment location, the display book, and the Macom.”

Next, in the judgment on the instant Claim 1, the elements of the instant Claim 1 correspond to “electric voltage conversion unit converting the voltage for home use into the voltage to the electric pressure control unit,” and “electric source supply unit supplying the electric voltage to boiler according to the control signal supplied by the control unit,” and the structure of “DC voltage generation unit, Q5, R11, R13, R14, and R15, R13, R14, fluororor, and divesium divesium 15, etc.” in the instant Claim 2’s element of the instant Claim 1’s technical development. In contrast to these structure, it is substantially the same that the electric pressure is converted to the direct voltage for operating the boiler to the electric temperature control unit according to the direction of the control unit, and it is not only the technical structure of the instant Claim 1’s indoor temperature control unit that constitutes a different device from that of the instant Claim 1. However, it is not only the technical structure of the temperature control unit that constitutes a different device from that of the instant Claim 1.

Furthermore, the effect of the instant Claim 1, which adopted the elements 1 and 2 and supplied all of them to boiler inside the digital temperature control apparatus, such as convenience in installing temperature control apparatus, is also significant to the extent possible for a person with ordinary skills to be predicted from the combinations 1 and 2 of comparable inventions 1 and 2.

Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied since a person with ordinary skills can easily make an invention by combining comparable inventions 1 and 2. In addition, insofar as the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 2 through No. 4 invention, which adds and limits some elements while including its technical characteristics, is not naturally recognized, and the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention should be deliberated and determined, including its added and limited elements.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 cannot be denied on the ground that all of the elements of the instant Claim Nos. 1 could not be easily derived from the cited inventions 1, and held that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 2 through 4 cannot be denied on the premise of such determination. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step of the invention, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)