[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 others (Patent Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

The shower So-called "Sarih" (Patent Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 16, 2004

1. The part of the claim No. 1 through 10, and the part of the claim No. 1 through 12 of the Patent Registration No. 199709 among the decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 31, 2001 by the case No. 2100 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 31, 2003 on the case 2001Da2100 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant trial decision

A. The Defendant filed a patent application on September 13, 1996 and registered as a patent on March 6, 1999, and filed a patent invalidation trial on the ground that the patent invention is the patentee of the invention related to the “mar-type dam device” (hereinafter “the patented invention of this case”). The Plaintiff New Il-il Co., Ltd. filed a petition for a patent invalidation trial on the ground that the patented invention of this case can be easily described from the prior invention 1, 2, 3, etc. as stated in the attached Table 2., 3., and 4. The Plaintiff C&T participated in the above trial procedure as an interested party.

B. The patented invention of this case is an invention related to an in-house dam device that operates a distribution system that regulates the supply amount of air conditioners by means of air conditioners, which is installed on the passage of air conditioners. The Intellectual Property Tribunal compared with the patent claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) of this case with prior invention No. 1, etc., the composition of “the framework that forms part of the passage” of the instant Claim No. 1 of this case is not manufactured and installed separately from the air conditioners and the framework is lacking. On the other hand, the prior invention No. 1, etc. did not find any composition that functions as above, while the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 of this case does not constitute a part of the passage, it cannot be seen that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 of this case can be seen as having been formed at the center of air conditioners, or that the remainder of the Claim No. 1 of this case can be seen as having been formed by the combination of the instant Claim No. 1 of this case due to lack of inventive step.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Whether the specification of the patented invention of this case is incomplete

(1) With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the claim(6) of the patent invention of this case (hereinafter “claim(6) of this case”) was not supported by the detailed description of the invention, the Defendant asserted that the detailed description of the invention support the part of the attached Form 21, stating that “the air conditioners (3) form the air conditioners (2) about the flow of the air conditioners to a about 90∑ 2, and put the framework (20) into the air conditioners (21) between the air conditioners (20). The distribution clause(4) contacts the air conditioners (3a) to the air conditioners (3a), thereby blocking the flow of the air conditioners (waste location) and the flow of the air condition (21) flow into the air condition through which the air conditioners pass through the air conditioners (21) and that it was supported by the attached Form 21.7.

Article 42(4) of the Patent Act provides that claims within the scope of a patent shall be supported by the detailed description of the invention in the specification attached to the patent application. Thus, where the specification of the patent invention does not meet the above requirements, the grounds for invalidation of patent pursuant to Article 133(1)1 of the Patent Act shall be the grounds for invalidation of patent (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hu232 delivered on October 27, 2000). As above, the reasons for demanding that the claims within the scope of a patent shall be supported by the detailed description of the invention shall be that a person with ordinary technical understanding in the art to which the invention pertains, i.e., a person with an average technological understanding of the invention can understand the invention accurately without adding special knowledge, considering the invention as the level of technology at the time of application by the detailed description of the invention.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s assertion No. 2 implementation art or No. 1. 7 of [Attachment 1] of the instant Claim No. 6 (“the mold”) explained “at the time of closing the above distribution structure, it cannot be deemed that it covers the above distribution structure when it opens the cooling system, and the above distribution system is opened, the line of the distribution would be exposed to the above structure,” and otherwise, the detailed description of the invention does not contain any description or suggest about the composition and action effects corresponding to the instant Claim No. 6 invention (Evidence No. 3), and the drawings attached to the application do not fall under a separate drawing, not a specification, and thus, it is difficult for an average technician to understand whether the instant Claim No. 6 invention has any function and effect, and therefore, the instant Claim No. 6 invention violates Article 42(4) of the Patent Act.

(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s claim(11) of the patent invention of this case (hereinafter “claim(11) invention of this case”) characterized “an invention consisting of “an invention consisting of a combination of a crepans that combines with a distribution and the distribution.” The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim(s) invention of this case is contrary to Article 42(4) of the Patent Act, since a axis combining a distribution is a bridge of a motherter, it must be closely combined without any crepans to convey power to a distribution, and there must be essential elements such as Fin to convey power to a distribution. The claim(s) invention of this case is excluded from Finin, and the claim(s) invention of this case does not state the invention clearly or does not state any matters that are indispensable for the composition of the invention. Thus, the claim(s) invention of this case violates Article 42(4) of the Patent Act.

그러므로 살피건대, 이 사건 특허발명의 발명의 상세한 설명에는 스텝핑모터(1), 출력축(5), 피니온(6), 부채꼴치차(7), 축(13)은 배플(4)을 회동시키는 회동기구라는 기재가 있고(갑 제3호증), 위 기재와 별지 1.의 그림 2, 3을 참조하면 배플에 결합하는 축은 원고의 주장과 같이 모터의 구동축인 출력축(5)이 아니라 부채꼴치차(7)에 연결된 축(13)인 사실을 인정할 수 있으며, 이 사건 제11항 발명의 특허청구범위에도 “배플과 위 배플에 결합하는 축과는 여유있는 틈을 가지고 ‘결합되어’ 있다”는 기재가 있어서(갑 제3호증), 원고가 누락되었다고 주장하는 핀의 상위 개념인 결합구성에 관하여 기재하고 있다고 할 것이므로 특허법 제42조 제4항 에 위반되지 않는다고 할 것이다.

B. Whether the patented invention in this case was non-obviousness

(1) Whether the instant Claim 1 invention has non-obviousness

(5) Claim 1 invention of this case is (1) 2. 2. 2. Shall be composed of a 1 piece of air-conditioning equipment in the center (2) 1. 2. 2. 1 piece of air-conditioning equipment installed in the air-conditioning equipment (3) 2. 3 . 4 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 1 . 2 . . 2 . . 1 2 . . . 2 . . 2 . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ..... . ...... . . . . . ...... ....... . .... . .. .. . . . . . . ...... ............... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ................................... .................................. ............................................. ..................... ............. .......... ....... ..........>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First of all, the elements of the Claim 1 invention of this case are substantially identical to those of the Prior Invention 1, and the elements of the Claim 1 of this case are stated only as constituting a part of the passage, without simply limiting that the elements of the Claim 1 are separately produced and installed from the claims or both sides are used as a passage, etc. The elements of the Prior Invention 1 of the Prior Invention 1, corresponding to the "the framework" of the elements 1, "the joint venture (21a)" of the Prior Invention 1, corresponding to the "the passage" of the 1, "the joint venture (9) and the joint venture (21a)" of the Prior Invention 1, corresponding to the elements of the elements 1, constitutes a part of "the joint venture (21a) consisting of the joint venture (3,7 evidence) and the joint venture (21a) of the joint venture (21a). Therefore, the composition of the two inventions shall be deemed substantially identical (A. 3,7).

Next, as to whether the elements of paragraph (1) invention 2 of this case are substantially the same as the composition corresponding thereto, the opening part of the preceding invention 1 (21b) is installed in the center of the core part in attached Table 2. However, although it is unclear whether the contact point has been formed in the core of the cooling system, the detailed description of the invention of this case contains a statement that the flow of the cooling system is interrupted at the location where the contact point of the cooling system (3c) is contacted with the cooling system (the evidence No. 3 and No. 7 of this case), and in order to block the flow of the cooling system, the former part of the contact point of the cooling system should be in contact with the air conditioner (10). Thus, the previous technology of the preceding invention 1 of this case should be deemed to have been formed in the whole part of the opening part of the cooling system (10). Thus, the composition of the above invention is substantially the same.

Finally, as to whether the elements of the Claim 1 invention 3 of this case are substantially identical to those of the preceding invention 1, the preceding invention 1 of the preceding invention contains a statement that "fin (22) is supported by the joints (21c) of the joints (21a) of the joints (21c) of the joints (21c) of the joints (Evidence No. 7) of the joints (Evidence No. 7) of the air conditioners (22a) by the refins (22a), and the term "the joints" of the elements No. 3 of the preceding invention corresponds to "the joints (21a) of the joints (a) of the joints (a joints) of the air conditioners (21a) of the joints (a joints) of the two inventions."

Thus, the Claim No. 1 invention of this case is deemed to have no inventive step in that it can easily be claimed from prior inventions 1 and prior art by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art.

(2) Whether the instant Claim 2 invention has non-obviousness

According to Paragraph 2 of the Patent Claim 1 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim 2 of this case"), the term "the output of a cap" is added to Paragraph 1 of this case, and it is a subordinate claim which is limited to the combinations of the output and distribution axis of elements 4 through the reduction of speeds, and the combinations of the distribution axiss of elements 2 to the reduction of speeds," among the above elements, "the output axis of a cap" and "the accumulation of distribution 29a (29b)" of the preceding invention 1 and "the 19b (28b) 29b (29b) . . . . . . 1 of the preceding invention constitutes "the 292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . ... . ......... . ...... ........ ..... .... the prior inventions of the prior inventions of the prior invention . . . . . .. . . . . ..... ...... ...... .......... . . ............... ..................... ........................................................................................................................

(3) Whether the instant Claim 3 invention has non-obviousness

The claim 3 of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 3 invention of this case") is a subordinate claim that restricts the extent of opening of distribution to the cooling system of 3 elements by adding to the "the aforementioned cooling system to the location where it is completely open," and the claim 2 invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 3 invention of this case") of this case is a subordinate claim that restricts the extent of opening distribution to the cooling system of 3 elements. The picture 4 of the attached Form 2 of the prior invention 1 of the prior invention 2 of the prior invention 2 of the prior invention 2 of this case where the distribution (28) is moved to the location where it is completely open to the opening [the 21b, and the air cooling system of the patented invention of this case]. Thus, the claim 3 invention of this case is not non-obviousness since a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field of this case can easily make inventions

(4) Whether the instant Claim 4 invention was non-obviousness

The claim 4 of the patent invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 4 invention of this case") is a subordinate claim that restricts the level of the opening of distribution to the cooling apparatus of 3 elements by adding "the distribution of the above cooling apparatus (3)" to "a location open from the open location of the said cooling apparatus (3), and about 90∑ 4 of attached Form 1 of prior invention 1, the distribution (28) is open from the open location to the open location of the opening of the opening [21b, and the cooling apparatus of the patented invention of this case] of 90∑ 4 invention of this case. Thus, the invention of this case is not non-obviousness since a person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case can easily make inventions from the prior invention 1, the previous technology of 1, and the previous invention 2.

(5) Whether the instant Claim 5 invention was non-obviousness

이 사건 특허발명의 특허청구범위 제5항(이하 ‘이 사건 제5항 발명’이라 한다)은 이 사건 제1항 발명의 구성요건 4의 모터를 “스텝핑모터”로 한정한 종속항인바, 선행발명 1에는 위 스텝핑모터에 대응되는 “모터(29a)”에 대한 기재가 있고, 다만 모터(29a)의 종류가 한정되어 있지 않으나, 위에서 본 바와 같이 선행발명 2에는 “펄스모터(B)가 고착되고, 작동축(3)의 연장단에 고정된 부채꼴치차(7)와 모터(B)에 고정된 피니언(9)이 기어박스(6) 내에서 치합하고 있는 구성”이 기재되어 있으며, 위 펄스모터(B)는 스텝핑모터와 동일한 것이므로(갑 제18호증의 1, 2, 3), 이 사건 제5항 발명은 이 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 선행발명 1, 선행발명 1의 종래기술 및 선행발명 2로부터 용이하게 발명할 수 있어서 진보성이 없다고 할 것이다.

(6) Whether the instant Claim 7 invention was non-obviousness

The claim 7 of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter "the claim 7 invention of this case") is a subordinate claim that limited the arrangement relationship with the distribution and cooling apparatus of the elements 3 in addition to "the location of which the cooling apparatus is closed in the above cooling apparatus in light of the flow of the cooling apparatus". The claim 1 invention of this case is a subordinate claim that limited the arrangement relationship with the distribution and cooling apparatus of the elements 3 in attached Form 4 of the prior invention 6 of the prior invention 6 in the color 4 of the attached Form 3 (the air cooling apparatus of the patented invention of this case) with the flow of the cooling apparatus. Thus, the claim 7 invention of this case is not non-obviousness because a person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case can easily make the previous technology and the prior invention of the prior invention 1, the prior invention 1, and the prior invention 3.

(7) Whether the instant Claim 8 invention has non-obviousness

The claim(8) of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter "claim(8) invention of this case") is a subordinate claim that restricts three distribution elements by adding "two distribution methods (41,42)" to "the composition of this distribution to be developed in the center almost in the passage of the body above," and two distribution flap (13a, 13b), and the distribution flap (41, 42) of the patented invention of this case constitutes the distribution flap (13 and 41, 42) of the patented invention of this case) to paragraph(1) invention of this case. Thus, the claim(8) invention of this case is not non-obviousness because a person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case can easily make the prior invention 1, prior invention 1, prior invention 1, and prior invention 3.

(8) Whether the instant Claim 9 invention was non-obviousness

이 사건 특허발명의 특허청구범위 제9항(이하 ‘이 사건 제9항 발명’이라 한다)은 이 사건 제1항 발명에 “위 회동기구는 스텝핑모터와 위 스템핑모터의 출력축에 감합된 피니온과 위 피니온과 맞물리는 부채꼴치차와 일단이 위 부채꼴치차에 감합하여, 타단측이 위 배플에 결합하는 축으로 된 구성”을 부가하여 구성요건 4를 한정한 종속항인바, 위에서 본 바와 같이 선행발명 1에는 위 “스텝핑모터”, “피니온” 및 “피니온과 맞물리는 부채꼴치차”에 대응되는 “모터(29a)”, “모터(29a)의 치차(29b)” 및 “회동축(28a)단의 치차(28b)”가 있고, 다만 선행발명1의 “모터(29a)”, “모터(29a)의 치차(29b)” 및 “회동축(28a)단의 치차(28b)”는 그 종류가 특정되어 있지 않았으나, 선행발명 2에 “펄스모터(B)가 고착되고, 작동축(3)의 연장단에 고정된 부채꼴치차(7)와 모터(B)에 고정된 피니언(9)이 기어박스(6) 내에서 치합하고 있는 구성”이 기재되어 있고 위 펄스모터(B)가 스텝핑모터와 동일함은 위에서 본 바와 같으므로, 이 사건 제9항 발명은 이 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 선행발명 1, 선행발명 1의 종래기술 및 선행발명 2로부터 용이하게 발명할 수 있어서 진보성이 없다고 할 것이다.

(9) Whether the instant Claim 10 invention has non-obviousness

The claim 10 of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 10 of this case") is subordinate claim 9 of this case, which added "a group of water scrap to the cooling body above the ground of the above distribution and attaching the top of the above water scrap to the above body." The picture 6 of the attached Form 4 of the prior invention 3 is attached to the nitch (which corresponds to the cooling body of the patented invention of this case) and attached to the nitch (which corresponds to the cooling body of the patented invention of this case). The other part of the claim 10 of this case can easily change the method of installing the nitch, but this difference can be easily changed. Thus, the claim 10 of this case is not non-obviousness since the person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case can easily make inventions from the prior invention 1, the prior invention 1, the previous invention 2, and the previous invention 3.

(10) Whether the instant Claim 11 invention has non-obviousness

이 사건 특허발명의 특허청구범위 제11항(이하 ‘이 사건 제11항 발명’이라 한다)은 이 사건 제9항 발명에 “위 배플과 위 배플에 결합하는 축과는 여유있는 틈을 가지고 결합되어 있는 구성”을 부가하여 구성요건 4를 한정한 종속항인바, 선행발명들에는 이에 대응되는 구성이 없고, 이 사건 특허발명의 발명의 상세한 설명에는 이러한 구성이 구체적으로 “축(13)과 배플(4)의 축부(4a, 4b)와는 틀체(2)에 핀(16)에 의해 여유 있는 틈(g)을 가지고 결합되어 있는 구성”으로 이루어져 있고, 이로 인하여 “스텝핑모터(1)의 구동정지는 배플(4)에 고착되어 있는 소프트테이프(14)가 접촉부(3c)에 접촉한 뒤에도 핀(16)이 여유 있는 틈(g)의 범위 내의 부분만큼 이동하고 나서 정지한다. 이 때문에 배플(4)에는 코일용수철(15)의 탄성력이 작용하여 탄성력을 가지는 소프트테이프(14)가 압착되어 접촉부(13c)가 소프트테이프(14)에 파고든 상태가 되어 접촉부(3c)와 소프트테이프(14)와의 사이가 틈이 없이 접촉한다”는 효과가 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로(갑 제3호증), 이 사건 제11항 발명은 이 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 선행발명들로부터 용이하게 발명할 수 없어서 진보성이 있다고 할 것이다.

(11) Whether the instant Claim 12 invention has non-obviousness

The claim 12 of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 12 invention of this case") is a subordinate claim attached to the claim 9 of this case, "the group of the foregoing debt set is good, and it is a component attached to the above Magran IC which detects access to the above Magran," and the prior invention 4 of this case contains "the composition of using Magman IC to detect the location of the Magles" (Evidence 10 of this case). Thus, the prior invention of this case is not non-obviousness in the prior invention 1, prior invention 1, prior invention 2, and prior invention 4, prior invention 1, prior invention 2, and prior invention 4.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the invention of this case Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 10, and 12 is without inventive step, and the invention of this case No. 6 is deemed as non-obviousness. Thus, the part on the invention of this case Nos. 1 through 10, and 12, the conclusion of the trial decision of this case is unlawful. Since the invention of this case No. 11 is not non-obviousness but non-obviousness, the part on the invention of this case No. 11, the conclusion of the trial decision of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are partly accepted, and it is decided as per the Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-tae (Presiding Judge)