In a case where Gap corporation et al. filed for a patent invalidation trial against Eul corporation on the ground that the patent right holder of the patented invention named "the processed kartage, an electronic photographic image-making device, the transmission failure of old power, and an electronic photograph drum" was denied, but the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed it, the case holding that the above patented invention is not denied newness or inventive step.

In a case where Company A et al. filed a patent invalidation trial against Company B on the grounds that the patent right holder of a patented invention named “the processing knife store, electronic photograph-making device, old power transmission failure, and electronic photograph drum” was denied, but the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the petition, the case holding that the patent invention is not denied newness or non-obviousness by the cited invention, such as where the shape and organic structure differs between “non-samping part having a non-converting part having a dunes of multiple dunes" and “bag" of comparable inventions, which are the characteristic elements of the patented invention, are different, and the shape and organic structure are different, which is installed in both inventions and separated from the main assembly, and the structure of the luminous drum’s transmission of the previous power, and where both inventions are remarkably different in terms of the accuracy of the drum and the effect of improving the separation operation thereof, as well as where both inventions are significantly different.

Article 29(1) and (2) of the Patent Act

Nepotocon Co., Ltd. and 3 others (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Oh Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

캐논 가부시키가이샤 (キヤノン주식회사) (소송대리인 변호사 손지열 외 6인)

Patent Court Decision 201Heo7492 Decided February 2, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the matters described in the scope of the patent claim. In interpreting the meaning of the text, it shall be objectively and reasonably determined on the basis of the general meaning of the text and text, and in consideration of the description and drawing of the invention, etc. In a case where the technical composition is not known from the text and text of the patent claim, the scope of protection of the patented invention shall be determined by the determination of the technical composition in which the text and text would be expressed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da45876, Oct. 15, 2009, etc.).

2. A. The lower court: (a) compared with the claim Nos. 25 and 26 (hereinafter “instant Claim Nos. 25” and “instant Claim Nos. 26”) of the instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted) named as “processing car mileage, electronic photograph-making device, old power transmission failure, and electronic photograph drums”; and (b) compared with the cited Invention No. 1, 7, and 9, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, determined to the following purport, based on the following reasons.

1) The technical meaning of the invention of paragraph 25 of this case "non-protruding part and hole with two or more coponsed cross-sections"

The purpose of the instant Claim 25 is to improve the luminous drum of the video formation device. The purpose of the instant Claim 25 is to improve the accuracy of the revolving of the electronic photo drum, and to improve the function of the former power transmission device between the main assembly and the disposal camera (on-building period) when the Gu power is not delivered. As the axis of the former power transmission device between the main assembly and the disposal camera, it can not be said that the technical composition of the instant Claim 25 invention is clear by itself as it is difficult to properly understand how “non-original protruding and protruding hole across a non-original part of a number of chills” can achieve the purpose of the instant invention, and what is the technical meaning of “protrudings combined with the upper hole.”

Therefore, in light of the description and drawings of the invention in detail, the “cop” in the “cop” portion of the patent claim should be understood as having agreed with the “coption” as indicated in the detailed description of the invention. In addition, the “cop” in the “non-protruding part” and “non-proption hole” in the “non-proplateing part” should be seen as having the shape of a rophered by the conspiracy of the mortar. In addition, during the period of image formation, the “prophering part” in the “coption” in the “coption part” in the “coption part” should be seen as having the shape of a rophering part in accordance with the revolution. In addition, the term of image formation is 17aa, a drawing sign indicated in the specification of the patent invention in question; hereinafter, a number written together in the overall title refers to a drawing sign) should be understood as having the inner part of the protruding part of the cross-prophered part equipped with the main assembly part, and it should be known within the gap between the inner part.

As a result, the invention of paragraph 25 of this case can accurately determine the location of the luminous drum during the video formation period, thereby improving the luminous accuracy of the luminous drums, and enhancing the operational efficiency of the dial drums during the video formation period, and enhancing the operational efficiency of separating the dial drums from the main assembly.

2) Technical meaning of “Bag” listed in comparable inventions 1

In full view of the description of comparable invention 1 and the characteristics of generalbags, bags listed in the comparable invention 1 (11a, 111b) are deemed as a general combination bag inasmuch as there is no explanation about the shape of stillborn, the diameter of the bag, the bag, the bag, the bag, etc., and only the function of the baging is indicated as the function of the bag, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the bag is a general combination bag.

3) Whether the instant Claim 25 invention is new or non-obviousness by comparisond Invention 1

In comparison with the Nags (A. 111a, 111b) of comparable invention 1, the term “non-protruding part and hole with a non-conscepting part with a multiple sporesponding part,” which is the characteristic element of the instant Claim 25 invention, the shape and the inter-sporesponding part are different from the shape and the inter-sporesponding one another, and the structure installed and separated from both inventions in the main assembly (the main body of the device), and the structure in which the luminous drums (the main body of the device) turn back after transmitting the power. Accordingly, the invention of Claim 25 of this case is not denied by comparison 1 of the cited invention of this case.

Furthermore, the cited invention 1 does not appear to have the characteristic composition of the instant Claim 25 invention, but does not contain any content suggesting or suggesting it. Moreover, the two inventions significantly differ in terms of the effect of improving the accuracy and separation of a luminous fordrums due to such differences in composition, so the instant Claim 25 invention does not deny its inventive step by comparable Invention 1.

4) Whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 25 invention is denied by comparable Invention 1 and 7

Invention 7 is a component of the organic relationship between Bags and the corresponding portable tools, and the technical field, purpose, and effect is different from that of the instant Claim 25. Thus, it is difficult for a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to combine the structure of a tool with comparable inventions 1, in which a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, to which the invention pertains, is made, to combine the structure of a tool with the non-faget bags and protruding part in the non-faging hole in the non-faglined Invention 1. Thus, the nonobviousness of Claim 25 invention of this case

5) Whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 26 invention is denied by comparisond Invention 1 and 9

The instant Claim 26 invention added the composition of “fishing” to the instant Claim 25 invention, and limited the shape of “non-freshing part” to the form of “Substantial three-dimensional explosivem”, and limited the shape of “unreshing part” to the form of “Substantial three-dimensional shape.” The comparable invention 9 merely started with the composition of “Fresh” in comparison with the structure of “Fresh 9.”

Therefore, as long as the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 26 invention, which restricts the characteristic composition of the instant Claim 25 invention, is not denied, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 25 invention is not denied as a matter of course.

나. 한편 원심은, 이 사건 제25항 발명에서는 돌출부의 비틀린 모서리의 정점부가 구멍의 내면과 ‘점접촉’을 하게 되고 이에 의하여 구동력 전달이 이루어지는 데 비하여, 비교대상발명 1에서는 암나사와 수나사가 각각의 나사산 사면에 가해지는 마찰력으로 죄어짐으로써 체결되고 이러한 나사산 사면 사이의 접촉에 의하여 구동력 전달이 이루어지므로, 양 발명은 서로 다르다고 표현하고 있다. 그런데 이 사건 제25항 발명이 비틀린 돌출부의 모서리부를 뾰족하게 형성한 경우만으로 한정하고 있지는 아니하고, 완만하게 형성한 모서리부의 경우에는 구멍의 내면과 반드시 점접촉을 하게 될 것이라고 보기는 어려우므로, 위 점접촉이라는 표현 자체는 적절하지 아니하다. 그러나 모서리부를 완만하게 형성한 경우에도 ‘비틀린 돌출부의 모서리부를 통해서만 비틀린 구멍의 내면과 접촉이 일어나고 이에 의하여 구동력 전달이 이루어진다’는 점은 모서리부를 뾰족하게 형성한 경우에서와 동일하므로, 결국 모서리부를 뾰족하게 형성하든 완만하게 형성하든 관계없이 비교대상발명 1의 ‘암나사와 수나사의 나사산 사면 사이의 접촉에 의한 구동력 전달’과는 다른 구조로 된다. 따라서 비록 원심이 점접촉이라는 다소 부적절한 표현을 사용하고는 있으나 이 부분이 판결에 영향을 미치지는 아니한다고 할 것이다.

C. Examining these circumstances and the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the interpretation of the scope of claims, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)