[1] The case determining the meaning in substance by referring to the detailed description of the device and the description of the drawing on the ground that it can be interpreted by referring to the description of the specification and the drawings where the claims in the registered device are functional expressions

[2] The case holding that the newness and inventive step in the registered appeal shall be acknowledged on the ground that the registered appeal concerning the abandonment differs from the cited petition and its technical purpose, composition and operational effect, and it cannot be deemed that it was publicly announced by the quoted petition, and that it cannot be deemed that the party can easily easily create it

[1] The case determining the meaning in substance by referring to the detailed description of the device and the description of the drawings, where the claims in the registered device are functional expressions, on the ground that it can be interpreted by referring to the description of the specification and the text of the drawings

[2] The case holding that the newness and inventive step in the registered appeal shall be acknowledged on the ground that the registered appeal concerning the abandonment differs from the cited appeal and its technical purpose, composition and operational effect, and it cannot be deemed that it was publicly announced by the cited appeal, and that it cannot be deemed that it could easily be easily designed by the party.

[1] Article 8 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of September 23, 1998) (see current Article 9) / [2] Article 4 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of September 23, 1998) (see current Article 5)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1337 decided Oct. 2, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2584)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo4166 delivered on October 1, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined to the following purport by comparing the cited inventions described in the registered device of this case concerning “explosive abandonment” (the application of December 2, 1993, the registration number of August 2, 1996, the (registration number omitted) and the publication published prior to the filing of the application for the instant registered device (the Utility Model Gazette published on March 28, 191, the Utility Model Gazette No. 1 (the Publication No. 1 omitted) and the evidence No. 2 (the Patent Gazette published on August 14, 1992, and the (Public Notice No. 2 omitted)).

A. Determination on comparison with claims 1 of the instant registered petition and the cited petition, etc.

(1) 기술적 목적의 면에서, 이 사건 등록고안은 구동장치와 작업장치가 전용상태로 결합되어 복수 기종의 작업장치에 공통되는 구동장치를 공유할 수 없는 종래의 착유기의 문제점을 해결하기 위하여, 구동장치와 작업장치를 일반 수요자들이 손쉽게 착탈할 수 있는 연결부의 구성을 제공함으로써 하나의 구동장치에 착유기 등 기타 작업장치를 공유하여 사용할 수 있도록 하여 수요자의 부담을 경감시키고자 한 것인데 반하여, 인용고안은 모터의 동력 전달을 위해 대소 기어를 치합(치합)시킨 감속기를 사용하여 제작이 복잡하고 착유기의 크기도 크게 되며 실린더와 압출스크류 선단의 착유물 입자압출구의 간격도 조절할 수 없어 전문가가 아니면 취급이 어려운 종래의 착유기의 문제점을 해결하고자, 웜기어를 사용하여 착유기의 크기를 최소화하고 실린더를 압출스크류 쪽으로 당겨줌으로써 일반인도 용이하게 취급할 수 있도록 한 것이므로, 양 고안은 기술적 목적이 전혀 상이하다.

(2) In technical composition, the registered device of this case is composed of two parts (2) to be attached to the power supply unit (11) of the former device (1) which is jointly owned, and the parts (5), excluding the connection unit, are not disputed between the parties. Thus, the summary of the registered device of this case is deemed to be the connecting unit. However, even if it is based on the description of the claims, the composition of the connecting unit is still limited to the connecting unit for the sharing of the former unit, but its meaning is still determined by referring to the detailed description of the device and the description of the drawing, so it should be interpreted as only the connecting unit (the claims in the registered device of this case), and the defendant's assertion to the effect that it can not be interpreted as the connecting unit (the defendant's assertion to the effect that it can not be interpreted as the connecting unit (the connecting unit) with the specification of this case, referring to the description or detailed description of the plan of this case and the description of the connecting unit (the connecting unit) can not be interpreted as the connecting unit of this case).

이에 반하여, 인용고안은 실린더 고정대가 웜기어의 하우징에 볼트로 고정 결합되어 있고 그 내부에 웜기어축과 압출스크류가 커플링으로 연결된 구성으로 되어 있는바, 고정대만을 하우징으로부터 분리하고자 하여도 내부에 있는 웜기어축과 압출스크류를 연결하는 커플링에 걸리게 되어 완전히 분리될 수 없어 인용고안이 다른 녹즙기 등의 작업장치와 구동장치를 공유하기 위한 목적을 가진 연결부의 구성을 가지고 있다고 보기도 어렵고, 가사 어렵게 구동장치로부터 착유기의 작업장치를 분리할 수 있다 하더라도 이 사건 등록고안에서와 같이 구동장치로부터 작업장치를 누구나 쉽게 분리하고 연결할 수 있는 연결수단을 구비하고 있다고도 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, both devices are different in the technical composition of the connecting body, and it is not recognized that the party is a simple design that can easily be created by the technical composition of the connecting body by citing the technical composition of the connecting body, and furthermore, even if it cannot be punished as one of the operating devices and working devices in exploitation and abandonment and it is necessary to connect them, it cannot be deemed that the registration petition petition of this case is based on the technical composition that the sponse adopts an easy connecting method for sharing the operating device as intended.

(3) In terms of the operating effect, the instant registered device provides stamp and sap extract and sulverization equipment that can be used in other devices, and reduces the burden of consumers by selective purchase of the working device or additional purchase of the working device, and makes it possible for general owners to easily separate and connect the operating device and the working device, while the cited device has a substantial difference that such effect cannot be expected.

(4) In full view of the foregoing, the instant registered petition cannot be deemed to have been published by the cited petition, as it differs from the cited petition, technical purpose, composition, and effect, and cannot be deemed to have been easily designed by the relevant party.

On the other hand, the cited invention does not have any composition that connects the previous operation with the working device, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the registered device of this case can be easily designed by the cited invention.

B. Determination as to claims 2 and 3 of the instant petition for registration

Claims 2 and 3 of the instant registered petition are dependent claims citing claims 1, which are independent claims. As seen earlier, insofar as new and non-obviousness are recognized in claims 1 claims, claims 2 and 3 are also new and inventive step.

C. If so, the registered device of this case is new and non-obviousness recognized, and its registration cannot be deemed null and void.

2. In light of the records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence and failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the interpretation of the claims for utility model registration, or the reversal of the judgment of newness and inventive step.

All the grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)