[1] Criteria for determining newness, which is a patent requirement for a selective invention

[2] The case holding that it is not new since part of the composition of the compound of the invention claimed in the patent application is indicated in the comparable invention, which is a prior inventor, and if the remainder is an ordinary technician, it can be easily perceived and manufactured from the comparable invention

[1] There is no separate provision in the Patent Act on the requirements for selective invention, but it is a interpretation theory that applies a somewhat mitigated standard on the requirements for patentability instead of applying a strict standard on the requirements for inventive step among the requirements for patent, and thus, in the event that the same technical idea as the prior invention appears, it cannot be deemed a new invention that can be protected as a patent. Therefore, in a case where a substance, such as a compound, etc., written in an selective invention, is specifically commenced in the prior invention, even if the compound is more effective than the effect recognized in the prior literature written in the prior invention, insofar as the applicant does not form a claim for patent and file an application for patent as an invention for use, a new invention for a material patent cannot be recognized as an invention.

[2] The case holding that if part of the compound composition of the invention claimed in the patent application is indicated in the comparable invention which is a prior inventor and the remainder is an ordinary technician, it is not new since it can be easily perceived and manufactured from the comparable invention

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

Bangladesh Group (Attorneys Yellow Young-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

September 7, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 29, 2007 on the case No. 2005 Won8693 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. Application invention of this case

(1) Invention name: “Nitric Oxides Synthase Trait Traitcides”

(2) Date of application/priority date/application number: July 12, 1999/ January 13, 1997/No. 1999-706291

3. The scope of the patent claim (which was finally revised on December 22, 2005) (the invention described below 1. The invention described below is referred to as “instant Claim 1,” and the remainder of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11 are omitted).

[Request 1] Chemical I's chemical compound, or its salts or compound.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) An inventor: 8 persons, such as sn beamline, rid, Mascop (BEAm, Richard, Mascopd), Hadson, Hadson, HODSON, Harold, and Frcops.

(b) Invention;

(1) The comparable Invention is an inventor with respect to “AMDINO DIVIVIVIVIVIVIVESS NAES NAE NAHHBITS” published on July 8, 1993 as an international publication bulletin No. 93/13055 (Evidence No. 4) published on July 8, 1993 (AMIDINO DIVIVS)’s use as an adivers to restrain the creation of ASSAE and oxygen oxides (AMFIVIVIVS ESS), which is indicated as a useful chemical compound under the U.S. formula No. 146(I.M.).

A person shall be appointed.

(2) 비교대상발명의 명세서의 상세한 설명에는 위 화학식의 R¹ 및 Q의 치환기들에 대하여, “R¹은 의 직쇄 또는 측쇄를 갖는 알킬기, 의 알케닐기, 의 알키닐기, 의 시클로알킬기 또는 의 시클로알킬 알킬기; Q는 알킬렌, 알케닐렌 또는 하나 또는 그 이상의 알킬기에 의하여 선택적으로 치환될 수 있는 3개 내지 6개의 탄소 원자를 가지는 알키닐렌기; -(CH₂)p-X-(CH₂)q-(여기서 p는 2 또는 3, q는 1 또는 2 그리고 X는 S(O)x이고 x는 0, 1, 2, O 또는 NR²(여기서 R²는 H 또는 알킬); 또는 -(CH₂)r-A-(CH₂)s-(여기서 r은 0, 1, 2, s는 1 또는 2, 그리고 A는 탄소수 3 내지 6의 탄소환 또는 복소환(복소환)으로, 이는 알킬, 알콕시, 하이드록시, 할로, 니트로, 시아노, 트리플루오로 알킬, 아미노, 알킬아미노 또는 디 알킬아미노와 같은 하나 또는 그 이상의 적당한 치환기에 의해서 선택적으로 치환될 수 있다(을 4호증의 번역문 8-9면)”, “위 화합식으로 표시되는 화합물들의 바람직한(preferred) 그룹은 다음과 같은 화합물이다. R¹은 메틸; Q는 -(CH₂)n- 여기서 n은 3 내지 5 더욱 바람직하게는 3 또는 4; -CH₂CH=CHCH₂-; -(CH₂)p-X-(CH₂)q- 여기서 p는 2 또는 3, q는 1 또는 2 그리고 X는 S(O)x이고 x는 0, 1, 2로서 더욱 바람직하기로는 0, O 또는 NR₂이고 R²는 H 또는 알킬, 더욱 바람직하기로는 알킬; 또는 -(CH₂)r-A-(CH₂)s- 여기서 r은 1 또는 2, s는 1 또는 2, 그리고 A는 6개로 구성된 탄소환 또는 복소환, 더욱 바람직하게는 구체적인 고리의 하나는 위에서 언급된 것이고, 가장 바람직하게는 사이클로부틸, 페닐, 피리딜”, “위 화학식으로 표시되는 화합물들의 특히 바람직한 (particularly prefered) 그룹은 다음과 같은 그룹이다. R¹은 메틸, Q는 -(CH₂)n- 여기서 n은 3 또는 4; -CH₂CH=CHCH₂-; -(CH₂)₂-S-(CH₂)-; 또는 -(CH₂)-A-CH₂- 여기서 A는 사이클로프로필”이라고 기재되어 있다.

(c) A decision to reject a decision of rejection or a request for an appeal against dissatisfaction;

(1) On November 24, 2005, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the instant Claim 1 invention was specifically launched in comparable inventions, and thus, the newness as an selective invention is denied.

(2) On December 22, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial seeking the revocation of the foregoing decision of rejection, and submitted an amendment, such as a specification. Accordingly, the instant decision of rejection was maintained on February 2, 2006, even though the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner re-examineed the amended specification in the pre-examination procedure initiated accordingly.

(3) On January 29, 2007, the Intellectual Property Tribunal reviewed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial, and rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “The instant Claim No. 1’s compound is one of more than 30 compounds, which was launched more desirable than the comparable invention, and there is no difference between one of the most desirable compounds and only one carbon, and thus, it constitutes a compound that is specifically launched in the comparable invention, and thus, it is not recognized newness without having to consider its effect.”

[A Evidence 2, Evidence 4-1 to 4, Evidence 1 to 4]

2. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision by the Plaintiff’s assertion

가. 이 사건 제1항 발명은 비교대상발명에 상위개념으로 표현된 화합물 중에서 R¹이 메틸기이고 Q가 -(CH₂)₂-S-(CH₂)-인 화합물을 선택함으로써 선택적 NOS 억제제로서 유용한 화합물을 제시한 선택발명이다. 그런데 비교대상발명에는 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물 또는 그의 염 또는 용매화물(이하 ‘화합물’이라고만 한다)이 상위개념으로만 기재되어 있고 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물을 선택하도록 할 만한 구체적인 동기에 관한 아무런 기재가 없으며, 단지 바람직한 화합물과 더욱 바람직한 화합물에서도 마쿠쉬 형식으로 기재된 일반식 중 하나의 화합물로 기재되어 있을 뿐이다. 그리고 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물은 특히 바람직한 화합물에서는 제외되어 있고 11개의 실시예에도 포함되어 있지 않다. 따라서 이 사건 출원발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)가 비교대상발명의 명세서의 기재로부터 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물을 인식할 수 있을 정도로 직접적이고 명시적으로 개시되어 있지 않다.

B. The compound of the instant Claim No. 1 does not simply vary from the compound indicated in the prior art invention No. 4, but rather from the same nuclear structure, the manufacturing process differs. In other words, “2-(1-Aminothoththothothothothothothothothothothothothide”, which is a starting material used for the compound of the compound listed in the prior art invention No. 4, is a product on the market, and can be obtained immediately. On the other hand, “2,7-Ethothotho-5-Ethothothothothothothane acid” which is a starting material used for the compound of the instant Claim No. 1, which is used for the compound of the compound of the instant Claim No. 1, is not sold in the market, but can only be obtained through the process of multiple reactions separately. Moreover, there is no indication in the specification of the instant Claim No. 1 in the specification of the instant inventions.

C. Despite the fact that selective inventions are essentially “duplicate inventions” for prior inventions, it is exceptionally granted patent to inventions consisting of subordinate concepts with excellent effects, which are superior concepts, and thus, whether the prior inventions have significant effects compared to the prior inventions should be considered at the stage of determining newness, which is one of the elements for patent of selective inventions. However, the instant Claim No. 1 invention shows significant excellent effects in the choice of the eNOS, compared to the prior inventions, in the process of determining newness, which is one of the elements for patent of selective inventions. Accordingly, the instant Claim No. 1 invention ought to be recognized in light of the purport of recognizing selective inventions.

D. Since the patent registration of the invention of this case was obtained with the recognition of its newness and inventive step in 12 countries, such as the United States, Japan, Europe, and Australia, there are no reasonable legal and policy grounds to strictly determine patent requirements only in Korea.

E. Therefore, the patent application invention of this case is an selective invention not specifically initiated in comparable inventions, and is not denied newness by comparable inventions.

3. Determination

A. Newness of the instant Claim 1 invention

(1) Criteria for determination

The so-called selective invention whose elements are stated in the preceding or publicly notified invention as an upper concept and entirely or partly consist of subordinate concepts included in the above upper concept is without commencing the subordinate concepts comprising the selective invention. Second, all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have different effects from those of the preceding invention in quality, or there is no qualitative difference between them (Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2740 Decided April 25, 2003). However, in determining whether the preceding invention specifically starts with the subordinate concepts comprising the selective invention, the patent invention can be granted a patent unless it is clearly different from those of the preceding invention in quality (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2740 Decided April 25, 200). In addition, if an ordinarily skilled person in the technical field of the prior invention does not have the same effect as the prior invention in terms of the contents and technological formula of the prior invention, the patent applicant’s application of the prior invention as an alternative invention can not be granted a more specific method than the patent invention’s application requirement, and thus, the patent invention can be determined by comprehensively examining the prior invention.

(2) Whether the compound of Claim 1 was specifically launched in comparable inventions

(가) 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물은 비교대상발명의 화학식에서 R¹이 메틸기이고 Q가 -(CH₂)₂-S-(CH₂)₂-인 경우에 해당하는 화합물이다. 그런데 비교대상발명에서는 바람직한 화합물과 가장 바람직한 화합물 및 실시예에서 모두 R¹이 메틸기인 경우만이 기재되어 있으므로, 비교대상발명에는 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화학식에서 R¹이 메틸기인 경우가 구체적으로 개시되어 있다 할 것이다.

(B) As to whether Qa - (CH2), - (CH2)-S- (CH2)- in the chemical formula of the instant Claim No. 1 in the comparable invention, health class, the compound of the instant Claim No. 1 is not indicated in the most desirable compound or example of the comparable invention, but is indicated in the desirable compound or more desirable compound, but is expressed in the so-called Macua type, which is selected by using the phrase “or” in the desirable compound and more desirable compound.

(C) However, from the specification of comparable inventions, we can find out the following circumstances:

① The number of compounds indicated in the instant Claim No. 1 invention is more desirable, including the instant Claim No. 1 invention, is more than 30-40. Thus, if an ordinary engineer is an ordinary engineer, the structure and name of such compound can be easily inserted, and it would be difficult to recognize the compound of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, which is one of them.

② The instant Claim No. 1’s compound is one of the four compounds indicated as the most desirable compound in the comparable invention - (CH2) - (CH2) - (CH2) - CH2-S- (CH2) - from the end of Qene (CH2) compared to one of the four compounds identified as the most desirable compound in the comparable invention. If the instant Claim No. 1’s compound is linked to the end short-term of each Qher, the most desirable compound in the comparable invention is “S-S2-N2 (N2)-CO-)” in the main structure, and the compound of the instant Claim No. 1 is “S-S2 (N2) - - CH2 (N2) - - CH2) - 1’s main compound is easily identified as the main compound of the instant Claim No. 1 in which the two inventions appear to have the same properties as the instant Claim No. CO2 (H2) - 1’s main compound in which the two inventions appear to be identical from the main compound.

③ In the specification of comparable inventions, 30-40 parts of more desirable compounds are written, and 4 of them are identified again, and it cannot be deemed as a negative implication to exclude more desirable compounds (it is difficult to deem that more than 30-40 compounds, which are written as more desirable compounds, are excluded from the scope of rights in the inventions subject to comparison).

④ In particular, the desirable compound is only one chemical formula of comparable invention, and the q is more desirable than 1 or 2, and the q is more desirable than 2 in the case of 1st, x, and R registry, unlike ar registry, the case of 1 or 2. Therefore, it is interpreted that at least 1 or 2 in the case of q is equivalent to the case of 1 or 2. Thus, if an ordinary engineer is an ordinary engineer, it seems that q is naturally presented to 2 cases.

⑤ 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물은 통상의 기술자가 공지의 출발물질을 가지고서 비교대상발명에 기재된 내용만으로 용이하게 제조할 수 있다. 즉, 비교대상발명의 명세서에는, “화학식 (I) [ ]로 표시되는 화합물은 화학식 (II) [ ]로 표시되는 아미노산 또는 그것의 보호된 유도체와 화학식 (III) [ ]으로 표시되는 화합물의 반응에 의해 제조되어 질 수 있다.”라고 기재되어 있고, 달리 이러한 반응이 불가능하거나 특히 곤란하다고 할 만한 기재를 찾아 볼 수 없으므로, 통상의 기술자는 이러한 기재로부터 Q가 -(CH₂)₂-S-(CH₂)₂-이고, R¹이 CH₃인 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물은 H₂N-(CH₂)₂-S-(CH₂)₂-C(NH₂)H-CO₂H와 NH=C(CH₃)L의 반응에 의하여 제조되는 것임을 용이하게 이해할 수 있을 것이다. 또, 갑 4호증의 1, 을 4, 5, 6호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 출원발명의 출원 당시, 비교대상발명에서 화학식(II)로 표시되는 아미노산 또는 그것의 보호된 유도체는 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물의 출발물질인 화학식 (II)로 표시된 화합물인 “2,7-디아미노-5-티오 헵탄산”과 동일한 것인데, 이와 명칭만 상이할 뿐 실질적으로 동일한 물질인 “S-2-아미노에틸-L-호모시스테인”이 이미 제조된 바 있고, 이러한 “S-(β-아미노에틸)-L-호모시스테인”은 실험을 위한 재료(Material)로도 사용되고 있었던 사실, 비교대상발명에서 화학식 (III) [ ]으로 표시되는 화합물은 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물의 출발물질인 화학식 (III)으로 표시되는 화합물과 동일하고, 비교대상발명의 실시예에서도 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물의 출발물질로 사용되는 “에틸아세테이트이미데이트 하이드로클로라이드”가 기재되어 있는 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정 사실에 의하면, 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물을 제조하기 위한 출발물질은 모두 통상의 기술자가 용이하게 입수하거나 능히 제조할 수 있는 물질이라 할 것이다. 따라서 통상의 기술자라면 비교대상발명의 기재만으로 이 사건 제1항 발명의 화합물을 용이하게 제조할 수 있다.

(D) Therefore, if an ordinary engineer is, the content indicated in the specification of the comparable invention and the technical formula at the time of the application for the patent application of the instant invention can be directly identified from the comparable invention as to the existence of the instant Claim No. 1 invention. Therefore, the compound of the instant Claim No. 1 was specifically launched in the comparable invention.

(3) Ultimately, the instant Claim 1 invention was specifically launched in the comparable invention published in the published published prior to the filing of the application, and thus, it is impermissible to obtain a patent, as it is denied newness by the comparable invention.

(b) Conclusion

As long as the instant Claim 1 invention is not patentable due to the denial of newness by the comparison with comparable inventions, the entire invention in the instant application cannot be patentable, and thus, the instant trial decision with the same conclusion is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Sung-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)