[1] Criteria to determine whether an invention compared to a patented invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention

[2] The meaning of "the solution principle of task is the same in both inventions" and the method of determining whether an invention compared to a patented invention falls under the scope of patent right of the patented invention

[3] The case holding that the invention in question cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right under paragraphs (6), (7) and (22) of the patent claim of the patented invention, which is "the method of automatic conversion to Korea-U.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.

[1] In order for an invention to be compared to a patented invention to be within the scope of the patent right of the patented invention, an organic combination relationship between each element and its component must be included in the corresponding invention. On the other hand, even in the case of an invention compared to a patented invention, the solution principle for the task is identical in both inventions, even if it is based on such values, it can achieve the same purpose as the patented invention, has the same effect as the patented invention, and if it is obvious that it would be easy for anyone to easily think that it would have been made, unless there are special circumstances such as where a technology or an ordinary technician could easily make an invention from an known art at the time of the application of the patented invention, or where a interchange composition of the invention compared to the patented invention through the procedure for the application of the patented invention constitutes an obvious exclusion from the scope of the patent right of the patented invention, the invention compared shall be deemed to be in full equal to the composition of the patent right of the patented invention as a whole, and shall be deemed to belong to the scope of the patent right of the patented invention.

[2] The requirement to regard an invention compared to a patent invention as belonging to the scope of the patent right of the patented invention that "the same solution principle in both inventions" means that the composition exchanged in the comparison invention is an non-essential part of the patented invention, and the invention to be compared has the characteristic composition of the patented invention. In understanding the characteristic composition of the patented invention, it is not formally extract part of the composition indicated in the claim, but it is necessary to investigate and determine what is the solution principle of the task that is based on the special solution method in the patented invention in comparison with the prior art at the time of the application, considering the detailed description of the invention in the specification and the prior art at the time of the application.

[3] The case holding that the invention subject to confirmation is not identical to each other in terms of individually comparing the composition of the invention subject to confirmation that is composed of stages 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, and 4, and 5 of paragraph (6) of the scope of the patent application of the patented invention, which is "the method of automatic conversion to Korea-U.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S.A.M.A.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.E

[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 97Hu2200 delivered on July 28, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1954) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29194 Delivered on February 25, 2005 / [1] and / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 Delivered on June 25, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1239)

Korean Microfrate Limited Company (Law Firm Law Firm Spah et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Cr. and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 16, 2009

1. The part of the claim(6), (7) and (22) of the trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 24, 2008 regarding the case No. 2007Da2532 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) Name: A method of automatic conversion into Korean territory as applied to a combined input device;

(2) The right holder: the Defendants (the initial patent registration was completed by Defendant 1 on his own, but Defendant 2 subsequently acquired the portion of the patent right from Defendant 1 and completed the registration of transfer, respectively, on December 4, 2002 and May 28, 2003).

(3) Date of application/registration date/registration number: July 6, 1995/ 16591 of September 17, 1998

(4) Claims (the indication of the drawings is referred to as the drawings of the patented invention of this case)

1. (Final Binding of Claim) With respect to the method of automatic transition applicable to a single-use combined input device, the first step to create a corresponding language of the key which has been entered until the separation is entered; the second step to carry out the ruling of the Han-young on the fish segment created by the first step; and the second step to convert the word of the above language into a single-use automatic conversion method (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 1”) with the characteristic of including the third step to convert the expression of the above language according to the results determined at the second step (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 1,” and as well as the other claims in the same way).

2. Claim 2. and 3. (Final Invalidity)

4. Claims (Omission of Entry)

Article 5 (Finality of Claims)

6. In Claim 6. In paragraph 1, the first step is the automatic transition method in the territory of the Republic of Korea, with the feature of the creation of each of the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the input text column.

In claim 7. In paragraph 1, the second phase shall include the process of determining the language division in Korean if the above language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association; and the process of automatically converting the language division into English if the above language section satisfies the rules of the Korean Association;

In the claims 8. In paragraph 1, the above two steps shall include the process of determining the language division in Korean upon satisfaction of the rules of the Korean Association; the process of determining the language division in English as if the above is satisfied of the rules of the Korean Association; and the process of automatically converting the language division into Korean, which shall include the process of determining the language division in Korean, if the language section above satisfies the requirements of English Association; and if the said rules meet the requirements of English Association; and

9. Claims 9. and 10. (Omission of Descriptions)

Article 11 (Final Judgment on Nullity of Claims)

Article 12 (Omission of Entry)

Article 13. Confirmation of Nullity of Claims)

In Claim 14.1, in Section 1, the second step is the automatic transition method to Korea, with a feature of determining the above terms in English, if the above terms have non-Korean characters.

Article 15 (Omission of Entry)

16. to 20. (Final Invalidity of Claims)

Claim 21. (Confirmation of Nullity) With respect to the automatic transition method applied to a single-use combined input device, the first-class converting the language saving into the language saving unit; the second-stage testing to examine whether the English language is the English language of the input key; the third-stage adding the corresponding key to the language column in the case of the English language of the above key; the fourth-stage generating the corresponding language corresponding to the initial key by repeating the above-mentioned two and the above-mentioned third-stage until the separation is entered; the fourth-stage implementation after the enforcement of the first-stage decision; the fifth and the fifth-stage determination below, in accordance with the results of the above fifth-stage determination, the automatic transition method shall include the six-stage converting the above language into Korean or English.

22. In Claim 22.21, the fourth step above shall be the automatic conversion method into Korea, with a feature of the creation of each of the English language saving and English language saving corresponding to the input text.

In Claim 23.21 or 22, the above-mentioned 5 is an automatic transition method with a feature of determining in English the above-mentioned language in the first column of this Section, unless the above-mentioned language is in Korean initial.

24. Claims 24. and 25. (Omission of Descriptions)

(b) An invention subject to verification;

The technical details and drawings of the invention subject to confirmation shall be indicated in attached Form 2 as described in the description and drawings of the invention subject to confirmation.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

(1) On September 11, 2007, the Defendants filed against the Plaintiff a claim against the Intellectual Property Tribunal to confirm that the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the patent right of the instant patent invention under Articles 6, 7, 8, 14, 22, and 23.

(2) After the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board examined the above case on 2007Dang2532, it rendered a trial ruling dismissing part of the above case on September 24, 2008 on the ground that the invention subject to confirmation falls within the scope of the right of the patented invention under Articles 6, 7, and 22 of this case, and that it does not fall within the scope of the right of the patented invention under Articles 8, 14, and 23 of this case.

2. Issues of the instant case

In the litigation of this case where the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the part of the claim for a trial among the trial decision of this case, the parties only dispute whether the invention in question falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case in comparison with each composition of the patented invention of Articles 6, 7, and 22 of this case (the Plaintiff does not claim that the invention in question falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, 6, 7, and 22 of this case (the Plaintiff does not have any interest in the confirmation of the claim for a trial of this case because the invention in question is different from the invention in question being implemented by the Plaintiff in the litigation of this case). The issue of this case is whether the invention in question falls under the scope of right to the patented invention of this case of Articles 6, 7, and 22 of this case.

3. Whether the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention under paragraph (6) of this case.

A. The elements of the instant patent invention No. 6

The patented invention of this case is, with respect to the automatic conversion method applied to the single-use combined input device, the first step to create both the Korean language saving and the English language saving corresponding to the key(s) entered until the separation is entered; the second step to carry out the ruling of the Korean Madrid in respect of the fishing sections created by the first step; and the second step to include the three step to convert the words of the above language according to the results determined at the second step.

(b) Confirmation of response composition;

(1) Part 1 of the first stage composition

The first phase of the instant Claim 6 invention is “the first phase to create the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the key entered by the separater until the separater is input,” and in the instant invention, the first phase of the instant Claim 6 invention is corresponding to the “A phase to create the text saving heat corresponding to the value of the word saving, which is successively entered by the user until the separater is input,” which is mainly used in the automatic conversion method, such as the computer sign protocol, accelerator, wave points, e-mail document editing, search language inputs, etc., in the first phase of the instant invention.

(2) Part of the second stage composition

The second step of the patent invention of this case is "the second step that carries out the determination of the Hanyoung on the fish sections created by the first step". In the invention of this case, "the second step of this case is corresponding to the second step that "the second step of this case is "the second step that makes the determination of the Hanyoung on the fish sections created by the first step" and "the second step of this case is the second step that provides the users with the language column directly input by the users, or provides them subject to the determination by adding the self response code, and confirms the satisfaction of the English conditions for the entire fish

(3) Part 3 of the third stage composition

The third step of the instant patent invention is “the third step converting the expression of the above language according to the result determined at the second step,” and in the instant patent invention, “the third step converting the expression of the above language into the third step, according to the result of the commercial step B or D, according to the result of the determination at the upper step,” the two steps responding to the “E that converts the expression of the subject language into the suitable language (in English language, Korean language, and Chinese English mixed mixed.”

C. Determination of comparison

Examining the first phase of the invention of this case and the first phase of the invention of this case in preparation for the composition of the first phase of the invention of this case, the composition of the first phase of the invention of this case of paragraph (6) of this case is composed of the second phase of the determination of Korea Mod, and the second phase of the determination of Korea Mod, but there is a difference in the composition in that both the first phase of the invention of this case and the first phase of English Mod are generated only the English Mod, which is equivalent to the English Mod, which is equivalent to the English Mod, in the A phase of the invention of this case (the description and drawings of the invention of this case in question, the explanation of the first phase of the detailed description, and the composition of the first phase of the Gap phase and the second phase of the drawings of the invention of this case, which are combined with the description of the invention of this case, are combined with the composition of the invention of this case 1).

Examining the second phase of the invention of this case in comparison with the second phase of the invention of this case, the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case, the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the determination on the Korean language saving and English language saving respectively created corresponding to the key which was input until the separation is input. However, the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the first phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase, the determination on whether the additional language saving and English language saving are in conformity with the terms and conditions of the input code of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case in the second phase of the invention of this case can be separated from the composition of paragraph 16.

On the other hand, the third stage composition of the instant Claim 6 and the second stage composition of the instant Claim 6 are the same in that the expression of text is changed according to the results of the previous judgment.

(d) Result of preparation.

(1) Whether it constitutes a literal infringement

As seen above, since both the instant Claim 6’s patented invention and the instant Claim 6 are jointly connected at the time of vertical and organic connection, if the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim 6’s patented invention due to literal infringement, the entire composition of the instant Claim 6’s patented invention is used as it is, as well as the current vertical and organic connection between each composition.

However, even if the composition of the invention in question at the first and second stages of the instant Claim 6 and the composition of the invention in question corresponding thereto are individually prepared, it does not coincide with each other, as well as the cross-affiliated connection does not coincide with each other. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the invention in question belongs to the scope of the right to the instant Claim 6 of the Patent Act due to the literal infringement.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the first step of the instant patent invention is only the creation of the Korean language saving and English language saving respectively, and that they do not limit the time when each language saving is created. The specification of the instant patent invention contains not only “the case where both Korean and English characters are created and stored simultaneously in a key corresponding to the Korean language and English code,” but also “the case where only Korean characters are stored and converted into another party according to the needs” as well as “the case where conversion is made to one party according to the needs” in the instant patent invention. Thus, the instant patent invention asserts to the purport that the instant patent invention does not create both Korean language saving and English language saving and the English language saving as well as the composition of the first step of the latter is also included in the composition of the instant patent invention as provided in paragraph (6) of this case.

According to Gap evidence No. 2, the detailed description of the invention of the patented invention of this case can be acknowledged as the fact that "the plaintiff created and stored the English characters of Japanese characters (or can be converted to other party only if it is stored and required) with the key values corresponding to the Korean and English characters with respect to Japanese characters." However, from the description of claims itself, the first step composition of the patented invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of the first step composition is to create both Korean and English languages before moving back to the second step composition that carries out the decision of Korean Mod, so long as the contents of the scope of right are clearly interpreted by the description of claims, the interpretation of the claims can not be expanded by the above detailed description of the invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of patent invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this kind of description No. 1, the defendant's explanation of the above part of the invention of this case of this case of this case can not be accepted.

In addition, the defendants claim that ① the patented invention of this case is satisfied as one means of determination because it conducts Korean and English rulings without distinguishing the terms of the input language, and that the input language is always subject to the procedure of Korean and English rulings, i.e., a total of twice rulings. In the challenged invention, each of the two means of determination should be determined for the use of the two means of determination whenever the two methods of determination are to be entered as necessary, and each one of the two means of determination is to be used for the use of the original, i.e., the two methods of determination. In principle, if necessary after performing the determination for the Modity verification and the determination on the current Modity, the determination on the response Modrid is more excessive, and thus, the invention of this case is more efficient than the patented invention of this case, and ② the invention of this case is more effective than the patented invention of this case, and only if it is necessary to correct the error in the description of the original invention of this case to the effect that it is not sufficient to respond to the correct effect of the entry.

Unlike the patented invention of this case, the following facts are established: ① The challenged invention of this case, unlike the patented invention of this case, first confirmed the input code and created only the control of the input code according to the input code; ② the generated language code is inspected as to whether it is the condition of the input code; ② the response code additionally created if it is satisfied; ② the response code is created only after examining whether it is the condition of the input code in case of the challenged invention; ② the response code is created after examining whether it is the input code in case of the challenged invention, and the response code can be found. Thus, the response code is created. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties, but the above reasons can be the ground that the challenged invention of this case is an invention which is different from the patented invention of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above reasons can not be seen as the infringement of the right of the patented invention of this case.

(2) Whether it constitutes an equal infringement

(A) The defendants' assertion

The defendants asserts that the specification of the patented invention of this case contains not only "the case of simultaneously creating and storing Korean characters and English characters in the key values corresponding to the Korean characters and English characters," but also "the case of converting them into another party according to the needs" as well as "the case of storing only Korean characters and English characters and converting them into the other party." Thus, the defendants asserted that in the invention of this case, the invention of this case did not simultaneously create the Korean language saving and English languages, and the case of converting them into the other party according to the needs, it is within the scope that ordinary technicians can easily change, and the case of adopting the composition of the English saving corresponding to the response code within the extent that ordinary technicians can easily change, and therefore, the invention of this case constitutes the equivalents of the patented invention of this case.

(B) Determination

(1) Criteria for judgment

In order for an invention to be compared with a patented invention (hereinafter referred to as "invention") to be within the scope of the right of the patented invention, the organic combination relationship between each element and its component stated in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the invention. Meanwhile, even in cases where there are parts of the patent claim of the invention in the comparison invention, if both inventions are identical with the solution principle, even if they are in accordance with such values, they can achieve the same purpose as the patented invention, have the same effect as that of the patented invention, and if it is obvious to the extent that anyone can easily think if it is an ordinary technician, it is the same technology or ordinary technician as the one already known at the time of the application of the patented invention, or if there is an obvious exclusion from the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention through the procedure for the application of the patented invention, it shall be determined not by the detailed description of the patented invention as a whole, and it shall be deemed that the composition of the invention in comparison is equivalent to the invention as a whole, and it is within the scope of the right to the patented invention after 200.

② Specific determination

As seen above, notwithstanding the difference between the composition of the patented invention under Paragraph (6) of this case and the invention subject to confirmation, in order to determine whether the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention under Paragraph (6) of this case, we first examine whether the solution principle of the task is identical in both inventions.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 8, the prior art prior to the application for patent invention No. 6 of this case is judged as a sound unit, or even if it is determined as a unit of language, the prior art prior to the application for patent invention No. 6 of this case was judged as limited to the language part of which is entered into the Korean code. However, the patent invention No. 6 of this case is judged as a unit of language, but the language part of which is entered shall be judged as Korean or English or Korean, and there is a difference in both terms after it was created respectively in the Korean language part corresponding to the Korean key which is entered regardless of the input code.

In light of the above circumstances, the patented invention of this case is based on the "the resolution principle," where it is necessary to combine data or order language with Korean and English language, and where it is necessary to process data or order language, and to process data or order language without distinction between Korean and English version, to solve the task to provide the automatic conversion method by distinguishing text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text from English text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text.

However, unlike the first step composition of the instant patent invention, the challenged invention adopted “a composition to examine whether only the words corresponding to the values of characters to be entered and to examine whether the conditions of the input code are met,” unlike the composition of the first step structure of the instant patent invention. In the instant patent invention, the challenged invention first examined whether the relevant conditions of the input code code are satisfied by the input code, and then, if satisfied, the determination without additional generation of the response code code, is conducted only when the determination is completed without satisfying the conditions of the input code, and only when the response code code is satisfied by satisfying the conditions of the input code.

Ultimately, the challenged invention does not comply with the resolution principle that determines whether both terms are Korean or English for all of the following terms: (a) the challenged invention in the instant Claim 6 of the Patent Act (hereinafter referred to as the “influence”) is identical, and automatically converted according to the result; (b) the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the key entered until the separation is entered, regardless of the input appearance; and (c) the resolution principle that determines whether both terms are Korean or English.

Furthermore, even if the effects of the instant patent invention and the challenged invention are identical to those of the instant patent invention, as seen above, in the case of the challenged invention, only after the inspection as to whether the language created by the input code is in conformity with the relevant input code, the response code is created. As such, the response code can be lost when the response code is created, and the response code can lead to an error in the English pattern. Thus, as long as the results of the composition where the two inventions are converted into the Chinese style are inconsistent, it cannot be deemed that the challenged invention has the same effect. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the challenged invention is an identical invention with the instant patent invention as referred to in paragraph (6) of this case cannot be accepted.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the invention in question belongs to the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case under Paragraph 6 of this case due to equal infringement.

4. Whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention under paragraph (7) of this case.

A. The elements of the instant patent invention No. 7

The patented invention of this case is, with respect to the automatic conversion method applied to the single-use combined input device, the first step to create the corresponding language of the key which was entered until the separation is entered; with respect to the language created by the first step above, the process to determine the language division in Korean upon satisfaction of the rules of the Korean Association; and the second step to determine the language division in English if the above language section is dissatisfied with the rules of the Korean Association; and the second step to determine the language division in English; and the second step to convert the word of the above language into the third step to which the words of the above language were changed as determined at the second step.

(b) Confirmation of response composition;

(1) Part 1 of the first stage composition

The first phase of the instant patent invention is “the first phase of the automatic conversion method applied to a single-use combined input device, which creates the corresponding language with the key input until the separation is input,” and in the instant invention, the first phase of the instant patent invention is corresponding to “A phase in which the word heat corresponding to the value of characters input in the order of a separate user is created, in the first phase of the challenged automatic conversion method mainly used in a single-end automatic conversion method, such as a computer sign protocol, cella, wave points, e-mail document compilation, search language input, etc., from the user until the separate user is input.”

(2) Part of the second stage composition

The second phase of the instant patent invention is “the process to determine the language division in Korean language with respect to the language section created by the first phase of the upper term; and the second phase to determine the language division in English if the above language section is satisfied with the rules of the Korean Association;” in the challenged invention, “the two steps to determine the language division in English if the above language section is satisfied with the rules of the Korean Association,” and “the two steps to determine the language division in English shall be followed: (a) provide the user with the language column directly entered by the user or to provide the subject to the determination by adding the self-refluent text column; and (b) confirm whether the language division in question satisfies the English conditions for the entire language section in question; and (c) confirm whether there is any complete language, and

(3) Part 3 of the third stage composition

The third phase of the instant patent invention is “the phase of converting the language expressions of the above language according to the results determined at the second phase,” and in the instant invention, “the E phase of converting the text expressions of the subject language into the suitable language (in English language, Korean language saving, and Chinese mixed language saving) according to the results of the previous B or D decision in the previous B or D phase” is corresponding thereto.

C. Determination of comparison

(1) Stage 1 and 3 parts

The first phase of the instant patent invention and the second phase of the instant patent invention are identical in that the document entry method applied to the document entry method and the second phase of the instant patent invention is the same in that it is the one in which the word saving letters classified by the separationr are inputs. The third phase of the instant patent invention and the second phase of the challenged invention are the same in that the composition of the third phase of the instant patent invention and the second phase of the challenged invention is the one in which the word expression is converted according

(2) Part of the second stage composition

(A) Preparation for specific composition

The second phase composition of the instant patent invention is determined in Korean language when the language created in the first phase composition satisfies the rules of the Korean Association, and is determined in English when the rules of the Korean Association are satisfied. According to the evidence No. 2 of the instant patent invention, as to the specific process to determine whether to satisfy the rules of the Korean Association, and the detailed process to determine whether to meet the rules of the Korean Association, where there is a significant nature, it shall be determined to satisfy the rules of the Korean Association. However, if any one of the above two conditions is not satisfied, the fact that the said rules of the Korean Association are written to be satisfied can be acknowledged.

On the other hand, in the B composition of the invention subject to confirmation, after examining whether the terms of English conditions are satisfied and whether there is a complete writing with respect to the Chinese language section created by the input code, that is, the composition of the invention subject to confirmation, after examining whether the terms of the input code are met with respect to the Chinese language section created by the input code, the determination shall be made by the same method with respect to the terms of the response code additionally created and added only when the determination is terminated without any additional response code, and only when the conditions of the input code are satisfied. However, in the description and drawings of the invention subject to confirmation, the unsatisfed writing means that the relevant language section is not completed by the Korean language saving union in violation of the Korean language union rules, that is, where there is no complete writing" in the invention subject to confirmation means the same meaning as "cases where the Korean language of the invention subject to confirmation satisfies the conditions of the invention subject to confirmation" in paragraph (7) of this case.

According to the two stages of the instant patent invention, although the two different methods of determination are used without the classification of the input package, the two stages of determination of the challenged invention are different depending on the classification of the input package. Thus, if the entire English text recorded in the English language package satisfies the English conditions, the determination shall be terminated (E1) and if the investigation satisfies the entire English language code (in this case, the entire English text code shall be stated in the English language code) and the corresponding Korean language code is created (B15), if the investigation satisfies the corresponding Korean language code, the target language code shall be expressed in the English language code (in this case, the whole English language code shall be expressed in the English language code) and if the investigation is conducted in the English language column (in the English language column 15), the whole English language code shall be expressed in the English language column 5 (in the English language column 15), if the investigation is conducted with the satisfaction of the English language column 1).

(B) Determination of comparison

As seen above, the B-level composition of the invention subject to confirmation is: (a) in the English version of the body of an association, the term “if the term in question satisfies the English conditions; (b) if the term in question meets the rules of the association; and (c) the response of the Korean language meets the rules of the association, the composition of the organization determined in the Korean language.” However, the term “if the subject language in question satisfies the rules of the association,” does not have the composition of the English language in question; (d) the response language in question meets the English language in question; (e) the response language in question meets the rules of the association; (e) the response language in question meets the rules of the association in Korean; and (e) the separate language in question meets the English language; (e) the composition of the subject language in question is not provided with the composition of the rules of the association in Korean language; and (e) the composition of the subject invention in question is not satisfied with the composition of the rules of the association in Korean language; and (e) the composition of the subject invention in question is not satisfied with the composition of the rules of the association in English.

Furthermore, as to whether the difference between the two components causes a difference in the effects of both inventions, the patented invention of this case is judged in English and converted into English when the words subject to the determination meet the rules of the Korean Association. However, in the invention subject to the determination, even if the words subject to the determination meet the English conditions and the response Korean language is satisfied when an investigation is conducted, if an investigation is conducted after separation of the investigation, and if the words meet the English conditions, it is converted into English only when the words meet the English conditions (the combination form of English and Korean language research) (E-13) (E-13), even if the term subject to the determination meet the conditions of the Korean Association, if the response English language saving is not possible even if the response language saving is dissatisfied with the Korean Association rules, the entire English language saving is indicated by waiver of the determination, and if an investigation is not conducted after separation into the English language saving (the English language saving-25) and the two or more English language saving conditions are different in that the two or more different is satisfied (the English language saving-25).

(C) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case, since they added other composition with the composition of the second phase of the patented invention of this case under paragraph (7) of this case.

However, as seen above, although the two stages of the invention in question are simply equipped with the composition of "where the target language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association, the composition of the invention in question shall be determined in Korean language" in the Korean pattern, it does not have the same composition in English pattern, and even where the English pattern and the Korean pattern are not provided with "where the target language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association, the composition of the judgment in English shall be determined in case the target language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association", and due to such differences in the composition, insofar as the result of the judgment of the Chinese style of the two inventions differs from the result of the judgment of the Chinese style of the two inventions, the invention in question shall not be deemed to contain the composition of the patented invention in question, and thus, the defendants'

(d) Result of preparation.

As seen above, there is a difference in the composition of the second phase of the patented invention of this case and the composition of the challenged invention in response thereto, and thereby there is a difference in the operating effects of both inventions. Thus, the challenged invention cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case under paragraph (7) of this case.

5. Whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention under paragraph (22) of this case.

A. The elements of the instant patent invention No. 22

The patented invention of this case is the first step in which the language is initial; the second step in which the term is converted into one language; the second step in which the term is converted into one language; the third step in which the term is added in the case of the English language of the above key; the fourth step in which the two steps and the third step in the above three steps are repeated until the separation is entered; the fourth step in which the two steps and the above three steps are generated in the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the key(s) entered; the fourth step after the implementation of the fourth step, the fifth step in which the ruling on the above term is made with respect to the above term; and the fifth step in accordance with the results of the ruling of the above five steps, and the first step in which the above term is converted into Korean or English, consist of the six steps in which the above term is converted into Korean or English.

(b) Confirmation of response composition;

(1) Parts of the 1 to 4 steps

The composition of the first to fourth of the instant patent invention is “the first step in which the language is initial in the automatic conversion method applied to the single-use mixed input device; the second step in which the input key is the English language key; the second step in which the corresponding key is added to the language column; the fourth step in which the corresponding key is created in the second step and the third step above until the separation is entered; and the fourth step in which the corresponding key is repeated in the second step and the third step above until the separation is entered; and the fourth step in which the corresponding English language and English language are generated in the initial key,” and in the challenged invention, the challenged invention is “the first step in the automatic conversion method used mainly in the automatic conversion method, such as the computer word protocol, liquid point, e-mail document compilation, search language recorder, etc.”.

(2) Stage 5

The 5th composition of the instant patent invention is “the 5th phase of rendering the ruling on the Korea-U.S. Section 22”. In the instant invention, “the 5th phase of rendering the said ruling on the Korea-U.S. Section 4,” corresponding to “the two phase of determining the Korea-U.S.-U.S. ruling on the Korea-U.S. Section 5,” and “the two phase of determining the Korea-U.S.-U.S. ruling on the Korea-U.S.-U.C. Section 5”, which

(3) Stage 6.

The 6th phase of the instant patent invention is “the 6th phase converting the above language to Korean or English in accordance with the result of the judgment in the 5th phase”, and in the invention subject to confirmation, “the E phase in which the expression of the subject language is converted (in English, Korean, and Chinese mixed, in accordance with the result of the judgment in the 2nd phase or D phase” is corresponding thereto.

C. Determination of comparison

Examining the structure of the first through fourth phase of the instant patent invention and the composition of the A phase of the instant patent invention, the composition of the first through fourth phase of the instant patent invention under paragraph (22) of this case is to create both Korean language saving and English language saving prior to moving to the fifth phase of the determination of the Han Young Unit. However, in the A phase of the instant patent invention, there is a difference in the composition in that only Chinese language saving and English language saving are generated (in the instant patent invention subject to confirmation, the detailed process of entering the language saving is not specifically presented in the first, second, and third phase of the instant patent invention under paragraph (22) of this case, but such detailed process is the basic characteristics of general computer works, and thus, the composition of the first, second, and third phase of the instant patent invention under Paragraph (22) of this case is also included in the instant patent invention subject to confirmation).

Examining the 5th phase of the invention of this case in comparison with the composition of the 5th phase of the invention of this case and the 5th phase of the invention of this case, the 5th phase of the invention of this case in the 22nd phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the invention of this case conducts the determination of the 5th phase of the 1 to 4 phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th invention of this case on all of the English language saving and English saving created commensurate with the terms generated until the separation is input. However, in the 2nd phase of the invention of this case, the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the invention of this case, the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 1 to 2nd of the 2nd.

On the other hand, the 6th stage composition of the instant patent invention and the 5th stage composition of the instant patent invention is the same in that the expression of text is changed according to the results of the judgment in the previous stage.

(d) Result of preparation.

As seen above, the composition of the challenged invention in the fourth and fifth stages of the instant Claim No. 22 and the composition of the challenged invention corresponding thereto are not identical individually from each other, and there is a conflict between the experimental and organic connection. This difference is identical to the outcome of preparing the composition of the challenged invention in the first and second stages of the instant Claim No. 6 invention and the composition of the challenged invention corresponding thereto. As such, on the ground that as seen above, whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim No. 6 invention, the challenged invention does not belong to the instant Claim No. 22.

6. Conclusion

Thus, the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case. Since the trial decision of this case differs from this conclusion, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is accepted.

Judges Kim Yong- Dis (Presiding Judge)