(a) The case holding that, in case where a person obtains an output by inputting Korean enuncing in his/her own name, etc., it shall not be deemed that the form of seal has been published for the purpose of improving the speed and shape of his/her seal;

(b) The case holding that the invention as referred to in paragraph (a) and the invention as referred to in paragraph (a) are the same;

(a) The case holding that, in case where anyone acquires an output by inputting Korean paintings into his own name, etc., the method of setting the center of the type of Korean characters in three or more vertical categories, horizontal and central axiss for the purpose of improving the speed and shape of figures shall not be deemed to be an known technology, and it shall not be deemed to be a publicly known one in the order of a vertical central axis by horizontal movement of "gnor" according to the established axis;

B. The case holding that the invention is the same invention on the grounds that the main purpose of the above "A" and the (a) invention are the same as three or more vertical axiss and three or more horizontal axiss to set up three or more vertical core positions for each type of Korean character, and that the "gnor" is expressed in the order of vertical axis without the back of "gnor" as a result of the active selection of the Korean character office corresponding to each type of figures.

(a) Articles 29(1)1 and 97 of the Patent Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Patent Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 289 Dated December 28, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the records, (a) an invention contains the elements of "explosion" as stated in the scope of the patent claim of the invention. However, despite such technical differences, as seen below, insofar as the identity of the invention and the (a) invention is recognized as identical, regardless of such technical differences, the invention cannot escape the scope of its right. In addition, in comparison with the cited evidence of the court below and the invention in this case, the records set the center location of the type of Korean characters into three or more vertical, horizontal, central axis, and the form of "gradation" cannot be deemed as a publicly known technology by horizontal transfer of "gradation" according to the established axis, and thus, the judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of patent right of the patented invention or in the incomplete deliberation, and there is no ground for discussing this issue.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the records, the purpose of this invention and (a) invention is to improve the speed and shape of human beings when they obtain encrymization by inputting Korean encrymization in different forms of commerce, etc. The main purpose of this invention is to set three vertical axiss and three horizontal axiss, and to subdivide the personal liberty according to the type of Korean combination and divide the form of human beings according to the form of Korean characters into three and three, and to divide the form of human liberty according to the form of Korean characters, and to change the horizontal and vertical length into the form of human body determined by the type of each human body group and move the form of human body to the form of a vertical-centered axis, and to divide it into three or more Korean characters of human beings group into two and more Korean characters, and the main point of the (a) invention is to divide the form of human beings group into two or more in accordance with the order of the vertical-centered base of the body of human beings group established in the order of the body of human beings group.

In comparison with the two, there is no substantial difference in the type of human being classified as either somewhat different or different, and in the invention of this case, for a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man who is not separate from the "welve chairs", the movement of "glve" in other cases, while in the invention of subparagraph (a), as a result, for a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man of a man’s character, the moving of "glve" alone is different from that of "glved" only; however, in the case of a man of a man of a man’s character in this field, the method of determining the location of a man of a man of a man’s body above the top in the order of a man of a man’s body is already indicated in the detailed description of the invention of this case, if the person has ordinary knowledge in this field, the method of determining the location of a man of a man can easily change without any such difference.

Therefore, the invention of this case and the (a) invention of this case are the same invention as long as the technical point of view is the same that the main body of the invention is to set up three or more vertical-centered and three or more horizontal-centered-centered-centered-centered-centered-centered-centered-centered-centered-oriented-oriented-oriented-oriented-oriented-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-type-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the determination of the scope of right of invention. Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won