[1] Criteria for determining the inventive step of an invention under the Patent Act

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that denied the inventive step compared to the cited invention

[1] The purpose of Article 29(2) of the Patent Act is to ensure that an invention claimed in a patent application is easily derived from the prior art, if it is a creation that lacks inventive step, and thus, the degree of difficulty in the creation that measure the existence of inventive step should be determined in consideration of the difference in its technical composition and action effects. Thus, if the composition of the patent application is different from the prior art and is considerably improved and advanced compared with the prior art in its action effect, the inventive step of the patent application invention should be recognized in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the development of inventive step.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that denied the nonobviousness of the patent application invention compared to the cited invention

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1284 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2723), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu781 delivered on November 26, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 85), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1064 delivered on May 23, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1871), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1798 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3647)

Han-ro Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na1405 decided September 30, 1996

The original decision shall be reversed. The case shall be remanded to the Appellate Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the court below's decision, since the invention of this case filed on July 21, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "original invention") is "10 to 20% of the total product, 50 to 70% of the total product and other genetic feed, protein feed, protein feed, UGF feed, etc., with the characteristics of "the temperature of 100 to 130%) and "the manufacturing method of protein feed containing the elements" with the characteristics of "the manufacturing method of protein feed containing the elements," and "the manufacturing method of protein feed containing 400 to 450 psi with the upper pressure of water free from the upper pressure of 40 to 450 psi, it is justified to find that the purpose of citing the original invention is to achieve the technical purpose of melting the melting method and to prevent the melting method with respect to the melting invention of protein quality."

2. The purpose of Article 29(2) of the Patent Act is to ensure that an invention claimed in a patent application is easily derived from the prior art, if it is a creation that lacks inventive step, and thus, the degree of difficulty in the creation that measure the existence of inventive step should be determined by taking into account the difference in technical composition and action effects. Thus, if the composition of the technology claimed in the patent application is different from the prior art and is considerably improved and advanced compared with the prior art in its action effect, the inventive step in the patent application invention should be recognized in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the development of inventive step (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Hu1284, Oct. 11, 191; 95Hu781, Nov. 26, 1996).

3. 그런데 기록에 의하면, 인용발명이 요소와 전분질, 유황, 단백질 등을 분쇄·혼합하여 가온, 가압하여 압출시켜 환제로 제조하는 방법을 개시하고 있음을 인정할 자료가 없을 뿐 아니라, 출원인은 본원발명과 인용발명을 대비하면서, 인용발명은 비수용성 다당류로서 형성되는 고체 탄화수소물 물질을 요소, 비우레트, 포름아미드 및 아세트아미드로 구성되는 그룹으로부터 선택한 아미드의 수용액과 반추동물에 대하여 비독성인 산 촉매와 함께 함침시킴으로써, 다당류를 가수분해시켜 아미드에 대하여 반응성인 카르보닐기를 형성케 하는 촉매를 제공하고, 고체 물질의 온도를 기준으로 160∼290℉의 온도범위에서 전술한 함침 고체 물질을 건조 및 반응시켜 아미드-다당류의 부가물과 최소한 약 5%의 수분을 함유하는 건조된 완만-방출성 질소 생성물을 만드는 방법으로서, 반추동물에 의하여 안전하고 유효하게 활용될 수 있도록 질소를 서서히 조절된 방법으로 반추위 내에 방출시키는 것을 목적으로 하는 것이나, 제조과정에서 물을 사용하는 관계로 요소의 독특한 냄새로 인하여 사료의 기호성이 크게 떨어지는 문제점이 있는데 반하여, 본원발명은 10∼20 중량%의 요소, 50∼70 중량%의 전분질 사료 및 기타 유황, 단백질 사료, UGF 함유사료 등의 원료를 분쇄·배합한 후 100∼130℃의 온도와 400∼450 psi의 압력에서 무수(무수) 압출(압출)시켜 요소를 함유한 단백질 사료를 제조하는 방법으로서, 반추동물의 반추위 내 미생물의 단백질 합성속도를 높이고 요소의 분해속도를 저하시킴으로써 암모니아 중독을 방지하고 체내 이용률이 높은 요소 함유 단백질 사료를 제공함을 목적으로 함과 동시에 제조과정에서 물을 사용하지 않음으로써 사료의 기호성이 저하되는 것을 방지하는 현저한 작용효과가 있으므로, 본원발명은 인용발명과 그 기술적 구성과 작용효과가 판이하여 인용발명에 의하여 용이하게 발명할 수 없는 것이라고 주장하고 있음을 알 수 있다.

Therefore, if the technical composition of the cited invention and the action effect of the cited invention are identical to the applicant's assertion, it may be recognized as non-obviousness because the quoted invention and its technical composition are considerably improved compared to the quoted invention by resolving the deterioration of the feed symbol, which is the problem of the quoted invention, in addition to the action effect. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on what difference exists in the technical composition and action effect compared with the quoted invention and should have judged the inventive step of the original invention. However, the court below should have judged the inventive step of the original invention without properly deliberating on this point, but without any evidence, determined that the quoted invention was made by a exchange system to solve the problem of the original invention, and without any evidence on the record, it would be easy for the original invention to easily make an invention from the quoted invention. The court below's decision contains an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to inventive step of the invention, or without any arbitrary examination, or without any evidence. The part of the grounds for appeal assigning this error is justified.

4. Therefore, the decision of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appeal trial office to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)