Where the prior art can be used to deny the inventive step of a registered device compared to the technical field.

Article 4 (2) of the Utility Model Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2006Hu2059 decided July 10, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1176)

Dae Youngtech Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Ji-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Hanyang Press Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Kim Jae-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 201Heo1460 decided May 18, 2012

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The term "technical field to which the device belongs" in Article 4 (2) of the Utility Model Act refers to the industrial sector in which the registered device is used in principle. Thus, even if the industrial sector in which the registered device is used is different from that of the registered device, if it is difficult to use the comparative device as a prior art that denies the inventive step of the registered device, if the technical composition of the comparative device in question is not a composition that can only be applied to a specific industrial sector, but can be used by a person with an ordinary skill in the industrial sector in which the registered device is located (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician") without any difficulty in solving any technical problem that is facing the registered device, it can be deemed as a prior art that denies the inventive step of the registered device (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2059 delivered on July 10, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the comparative high level 3 or 5 was merely a technology related to the simple mechanical device using “a technology that sets the spons in the place” and “satellite antenna,” and the technical field of the utility model registration claim(s) of the instant registered device (registration number omitted) using the name “sign/Road fixed device,” but the comparative high level 3 or 5 did not coincide with that of the instant registered device(s). However, the comparative high level 3 or 5 can be deemed as a technical device related to the mere mechanical device using “a technology that sets the spons in the place” and “a technology that sets the spons in the place,” which is the technical problem of the instant registered device(s) of the instant device(s) and the technical field of the device(s). In light of its function and function, etc., the comparative level 3 or 5 can not be denied for the purpose of resolving the progress of paragraph 1 or 5 without any particular problem.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the technical content 3 or 5 of the comparable device could not be used in the registered device of this case, because the purpose of the device of this case is different, compared to the fact that the device of this case of this case of this case is ground subsidence, but a prop is grounded due to external conflicts, etc., and the signboard is melted to solve problems that are difficult to distinguish by putting a signboard, etc., and the level of reception is adjusted in order to receive a superior quality broadcasting signal on the satellite broadcasting antenna of 3 or 5. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recognition of the comparable plan of comparison, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the record, the device of Paragraph 1 of this case is different from the comparative design 6 in that it is an element of maintaining the horizontal plane of road signs even if a prop is fluored, and there is an element of “hyn V, adjustment slots, adjustment V, and tebrence.” However, even if a prop is fluored, if it is intended to install a device that maintains the horizontal plane of road signs, it should be organized centering on an hing point so that a walk can be seen above and below, and if the weight of road name signs attached to a walking string, it should be made to the center of the parallel rather than the end of the prop, and it would be easy for anyone to think that the hing point should be fixed to the hingular line after adjusting the horizontal plane of the walking string. Moreover, it is not easy for anyone to create a device that sets up the comparative design from each of the comparative designs 1 to each of the 3rd designs or the comparative designs through the combination of 1).

Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 device can be easily created by an ordinary skilled person from 3 or 5 or 6 of the comparative device. Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 device is denied. Nevertheless, it cannot be deemed that an ordinary skilled person could easily derive from 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7 of the comparative device No. 1, 4, 6, and 7. Even if the comparative device No. 3 or 5 is used as prior art, it is difficult to see that drawing up the instant Claim No. 1 device by combining the structure of the conclusion of the comparative device No. 3 or 5 with the comparative device No. 3 or 5 with the comparative device No. 1 or 2 as it is extremely easy for ordinary skilled persons to draw up the instant Claim No. 1 device. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step, thereby

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)