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

[2] The case holding that the inventive step of the patent application invention as to the method of fingerprint identification is recognized

[1] In a case where a patent application is deemed to have more new effects than those expected from the prior art publicly known in the patent application, and where it is deemed that the technology claimed in the application has been significantly improved than the prior art, it shall be deemed that the invention cannot be easily made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, in light of the purpose of the patent system promoting the advancement and development of the technology.

[2] The case holding that the inventive step is recognized on the ground that the patent application invention and the cited inventions registered in the earlier application are clearly different in their technical composition and operational effects, and that the patent application invention is deemed to have a significant improvement of more than the expected effects by combining the publicly known prior art, and thus, a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of the technology to which the invention pertains cannot easily derive from the cited inventions, and thus, an inventive step is recognized.

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1411 delivered on December 26, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 559) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1817 delivered on November 28, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 229) Supreme Court Decision 95Hu80 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 1865), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu559 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 334), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu272 delivered on November 21, 195 (Gong196Sang, 58) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1989 delivered on July 29, 196 (Gong199, 58)

Korean Institute of Science and Technology (Patent Attorney No full-time, Counsel for defendant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na268 dated May 31, 1996

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment of the court below on the facts charged

A. Summary of the main invention and the cited invention

(1) The claim(s) of the instant invention filed on June 3, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant invention”) refers to the method of distinguishing the number of hydrogens that overlap with the registered fingerprints in the upper, lower, lower, left, and fluencing of the non-road map, which expresses the pattern of the land, by comparing them with the fingerprints recorded in the above process. As such, the claim(s) of the instant invention filed on June 3, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant invention”) is the method of fingerprinting the characteristics that indicate the degree of similarity, such as the decentralization between the areas that overlap in the above process, and the decentralization, and the proportion of the areas that overlap with the said area is above a certain level of flucing values, with the feature of distinguishing the features that indicate

(2) On February 8, 1984, the filing date of the original invention, the summary of the cited invention (1) of this case relating to the Japanese Patent Publication No. 59-24384, which was disclosed on February 8, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "cite invention (1)" is "the characteristic test circuit which determines the conformity of both parties by comparing the difference between the features points after seeking a coordinate of the features points with the two main features possessing the data of the group of the features with the features point."

(3) On June 27, 1989, before the filing date of the original invention, the Patent Gazette publication number 89-2287, published on June 27, 1989, the invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "cite invention 2") related to the method and equipment of the pattern pattern (only the quoted invention (hereinafter referred to as the "cite invention 2)" shall be made in the stage of continuously extracting a pattern with a size prescribed from images in order to form a master pattern pattern, the stage of mutual comparison of each sample sample extracted with all other project in video, the stage of recording the minimum similarity of the other pattern as a master pattern pattern, and the stage of distinguishing the pattern pattern pattern by the pattern name between the video and the poster pattern, and the stage of distinguishing each other, the stage of selecting a master pattern's automatic extraction is the stage of each sample sample sample with a size of graphic size and the stage of collecting the sample sample, each of the initial stage of the sample pattern's extraction from each other.

(b) Preparation for both inventions;

(1) In preparation for the main invention and the quoted invention, the method of extracting the characteristics showing the similarity degree of the original invention and determining the same fingerprint is similar to the method of determining the same fingerprint between the characteristics of the cited invention (1) by comparing the difference between the characteristics of the fingerprints of the cited invention (1) with the two. The method of extracting hydrogens that combines the non-road map images of the original invention with the upper, lower, lower, and lower, the number of hydrogens that flowed in the upper, lower, and lower, and the method of extracting the distinctive features indicating the similarity level of hydrogens that are equal to that of the cited invention (2) with the number of hydrogens that exceed a certain limit, is similar to that of the cited invention (2) by the method of identifying the pattern pattern by the pattern name procedure between the image including the material pattern pattern of the cited invention (2) and the marina pattern. Ultimately, the original invention is merely a combination of the cited invention (1) and the quoted invention (2).

(2) However, while the cited invention (2) measure the similarity of the original invention in comparison with the overall image, it is somewhat smaller or smaller, as it measures a similar level after moving a part of the video area to the entire image. However, such difference is merely a simple design modification that can be easily conducted by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology, and it cannot be deemed that there is a new increase effect beyond the expected effect. Accordingly, the nonobviousness of the original invention cannot be acknowledged.

(3) The original invention is not patentable under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, and the original decision that made such a decision is justifiable.

2. Judgment of party members

A. The purpose of Article 29(2) of the Patent Act is to deny inventive step when an invention claimed in a patent application is a creation that can easily be derived from the prior art, it shall be deemed to lack inventive step and not obtain a patent. If it is determined that an invention claimed in a patent application has a new operating effect more than the expected operating effect from the prior art publicly known in the patent application, and that the art claimed in the application is more remarkably improved than the prior art, it shall be deemed that the invention can not easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, in light of the purpose of the patent system promoting the development of inventive step, and thus, the inventive step is deemed to exist (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu80 delivered on May 10, 196).

B. We examine the original invention and the cited invention in accordance with the record.

(1) The cited invention (1) is a method of recognizing the fingerprints with the characteristic point, which is a method of comparing the difference between the characteristic point and the other characteristic point after seeking the coordinate of the other feature point in the center. In the case of fingerprint determination based on the above characteristic point, when the fingerprint is seriously affected by the finger, or when the fingerprint is not clear due to the knife, it is difficult to determine the extracted feature differently or when the error occurs in the result of the determination. Therefore, in order to reduce the difficulty of such determination or error rate, the original invention is adopted a non-tact unit processing method that can treat the knife image by comparing the knife image with the knife road map name that can recognize the knife with the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

(2) In order to measure the similarity of two fingerprintss compared with each other, the original invention is used to correct the locational relationship by using the sprink and parallel mobile values, and to determine the similarity between two images. However, the cited invention (2) is not the field of fingerprint recognition, but the so-called item patterning method used in the general image recognition field, which is used in the general image recognition field, and is used in the whole image, to distinguish the similarity of the two images. Furthermore, the cited invention (2) is not the aforementioned item display method, but the video that intends to find the most accurately and efficiently to find out the image that intends to find theme pattern as the most representative, and the two areas of use are different, and therefore, the objective, technical composition and operation of each other is clear.

(3) The original invention is not a technology that can easily be derived by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field by simply combining the cited invention (1)(2) with the fact that the cited invention contains a method not adopted in the cited invention, the fact that the person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field is aware of fingerprints within a prompt and rapid period of time, and the fingerprinting method that is far more accurate than ordinary methods with respect to fingerprints under poor conditions.

C. As such, the main invention and the quoted inventions are clearly different in technical composition and operational effects, and the main invention are deemed to have a new technological effect significantly improved beyond the expected effect by combining the publicly known prior art. As such, a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains cannot easily derive from the quoted inventions, and thus, the nonobviousness of the original invention can be recognized.

D. Nevertheless, the court below did not properly grasp the core technical contents of the original invention and the cited invention, and judged that the original invention has no inventive step because it is similar to the cited invention, without thoroughly understanding the core technical contents of the original invention and the cited invention. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of inventive step or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The argument on this point is with merit.

3. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded 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 on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)