[1] Criteria for determining the inventive step of a patent invention

[2] The case holding that the nonobviousness of invention is recognized

[1] The purpose of Article 6 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) is to lack inventive step when an invention claimed in a patent application is a creation that can easily be derived from the prior art, the invention shall be deemed to lack inventive step and not obtain a patent. In a case where it is recognized that the patent application has a new effect above the effect expected from the prior art publicly known in the application and that the patent application is more significantly improved than the prior art, in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the development of inventive step, the invention shall be deemed to have inventive step, and it shall be deemed that the invention could not easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, in

[2] The case reversing the original invention on the ground that the original invention and the cited invention have different objectives, technical composition, and operational effects from each other, and that the technology claimed in the application has more new operational effects than those expected from the prior art publicly known in the application, and is judged to have been significantly improved than the prior art, and thus, it cannot facilitate the original invention from the cited invention on the ground that the person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant field cannot easily conceal the original invention from the cited invention, and that the inventive step is recognized, it is different from the cited invention or that the inventive step is recognized.

[1] Article 6 (2) (see Article 29 (2)) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 6 (2) (see Article 29 (2)) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu272 delivered on Nov. 21, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 58) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1284 delivered on Oct. 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2723) Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1086 delivered on Oct. 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2829), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2003 Delivered on Oct. 22, 1991 (Gong191, 2831), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2478 delivered on Oct. 25, 191 (Gong1991, 2837), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2978 delivered on Oct. 29, 193 (Gong1991, 2837), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2989, Oct. 29, 1997

세이꼬 엡손 가부시끼가이샤 (소송대리인 법무법인 중앙국제법률특허사무소 담당변호사 이병호 외 4인)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Na1781 dated June 27, 1994

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office by destroying the original trial decision.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. Summary of the scope of claims for the invention of this case

이 사건 출원발명(이하 본원발명이라고 한다)의 특허청구 범위의 요지는, 제1항에서 "하나 이상의 희토류(희토류) 원소 R, Fe, B 및 Cu를 함유하는 합금주괴(합금주괴)를 결정입자가 정련되고 자기(자기)적으로 이방성(이방성)이 되도록 500℃ 이상에서 열가공하여 형성시킨 희토류-철 영구자석", 제8항에서 "하나 이상의 희토류 원소 R, Fe, B 및 Cu를 함유하는 합금의 주괴를 250℃ 이상에서 열처리하여 형성시킨 개선된 보자력(보자력)을 지닌 등방성(등방성) 희토류-철 영구자석", 제14항에서 "하나 이상의 희토류 원소 R, Fe, B 및 Cu를 함유하는 합금분말 및 유기결합제를 함유하는 희토류-철 영구자석", 제22항에서 "하나 이상의 희토류원소 R, Fe, B 및 Cu를 함유하는 합금으로부터 주괴를 형성하고 주괴를 500℃ 이상에서 열가공하여 결정입자를 미분(미분)한 후 이의 결정축을 특정 방향으로 정렬시켜 자기적으로 이방성이 되도록 함을 특징으로 하여 희토류-철 영구자석을 제조하는 방법", 제30항에서 "하나 이상의 희토류 원소 R, Fe, B 및 Cu를 함유하는 합금으로부터 주괴를 형성하고 주괴를 250℃ 이상에서 열처리하여 보자력을 증가시킴을 특징으로 하여 희토류-철 영구자석을 제조하는 방법"이라 기재된 5개의 독립항이고, 인용발명(1)(일본 공개특허공보 소 61-268006호, 이방성자석)의 특허청구 범위는 "희토류, 철 및 붕소를 기본성분으로 하는 합금자석에 있어서 온간소성가공(온간소성가공, 원심결에서 냉간가공이라고 표기한 것은 오기로 보인다)에 의해 자석 이방성(이방성)을 갖도록한 것을 특징으로 하는 이방성 자석"이며, 인용발명(2)(일본 공개특허공보 소 60-218457호, 영구자석합금)의 특허청구 범위는 "(1) Ce-Nd-Pr-Fe-Cu-B계 합금에 있어서 희토류 원소 R과 다른 원소 M과의 원자비를 Z(Z= M의 원자수/ R의 원자수)로 하고 R 중에서 원자수의 비율을 R= Ce1+a-b Nda Prb로 하고, 또한 M 중에서 원자수의 비율을 M= Fe1-x-y Cux By로 나타낼 때, 계수 a, b, x, y, z가 0.05 ≤ a ≤ 0.7, 0.05 ≤ b ≤ 0.7, 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.2, 0.001 ≤ y ≤ 0.15, 4.0 ≤ z ≤ 9.0의 수치를 취하는 것을 특징으로 하는 영구자석합금, (2) 제1항에 있어서, Cu의 일부를 Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta 중에서 하나 이상의 원소로 치환한 것을 특징으로 하는 영구자석합금, (3) 제1항에 있어서, B의 일부를 Al, Ga, In, Si, Ge, P, S, Bi, Sn, Pb 중에서 하나 이상의 원소로 치환한 것을 특징으로 하는 영구자석합금, (4) 제1항에 있어서, 희토류 원소의 일부를 La로 치환한 것을 특징으로 하는 영구자석합금"이며, 인용발명(3)(일본 공개특허공보 소 60-152008호, 영구자석용 재료)의 특허청구 범위는 "(1) R(Bx My Fe1-x-y)a (단, 0.01 "f x "f 0.3, 0.01 "f y "f 0.3, 4 "f a "f 16)인 조성식으로 나타내고, 상기 조성식에서 M은 Mn, Cu, Ni, Ti, V 중의 하나 이상을 조합시킨 것이며, R은 Y를 포함하는 희토류원소 La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm 중에서 하나 이상을 조합시킨 것을 특징으로 하는 영구자석용 재료, (2) R(Bx Siy Coz Fe1-x-y-z)a (단, 0.1 "f x "f 0.3, 0.01 "f y "f 0.3, 0.01 "f z < 0.98, 4 "f a "f 16)인 조성식으로 나타내고, 상기 조성식에서 M은 Mn, Cu, Ni, Ti, V 중의 하나 이상을 조합시킨 것이며, R은 Y를 포함하는 희토류원소 La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm 중의 하나 이상을 조합시킨 것을 특징으로 하는 영구자석용 재료"이고, 인용발명(4)(일본 공개특허공보 소 60-63304호, 희토류, 보론, 철계 영구자석용 합금분말의 제조방법)의 특허청구 범위는 "R(단, R은 Y를 포함하는 희토류 원소 중 하나 이상이다)은 10 원자%∼30 원자%, B는 2 원자%∼28 원자%, Fe는 65 원자%∼82 원자%를 주성분으로 하는 주조괴(주조괴)를 금속면이 노출하도록 파단(파단)한 후 파단괴(파단괴)를 밀폐용기를 넣어 용기 내의 공기를 수소가스(H2)로 치환한 후, 이 용기내에 200Torr∼50Kg/㎠의 수소가스(H2)를 공급하여 얻은 자연붕괴 합금분말을 탈수소(탈수소) 처리한 후 다시 미분쇄한 것을 특징으로 한 희토류, 보론, 철 계통 영구자석용 합금분말의 제조방법"에 관한 것이다.

2. The lower court’s recognition and judgment

R-Fe-B-Cu (R shall be selected from among Pr, Nd, Pr-Nd joints, Ce-Pr-Nd joints, and rares, which are the products created of this original invention, is similar to R-B-M-E (R shall be selected from among rare elements such as Y, and M shall be selected from among those of e-Nd-Pr-Cu-B-3) of the quoted invention (2) and R-B-E (R-M-E (R shall be selected from among sn, Cu, Ni). The method of manufacturing is similar to those that of pr, Nd, Pr-Nd joints, C-Nd joints, and rares, which are the products created of the original invention. Ultimately, the method of creating and manufacturing the original invention shall be easily granted by the heat treatment of the quoted invention (2) and the method of manufacturing the original invention shall be equivalent to that of the original invention, to the extent that it can be accepted (123) 14) or 14) of the former Patent Act.

3. Recognition and judgment of party members

A. The purpose of Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act is to make an invention easily derived from the prior art known to the public. The purpose of Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act is to make it impossible to obtain a patent by deeming the invention lack of inventive step when the invention claimed in the patent application is created, and to make it impossible to easily make an invention in the art to which the invention pertains, in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the development of inventive step, when it is determined that the technology claimed in the patent application has a new operating effect above the expected operating effect from the prior art known to the public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2003, Oct. 22, 191).

B. Therefore, according to the record, it can be seen in preparation for the main invention and the quoted invention.

(1) First of all, the cited inventions (1), (4) and (1) have old ingredients in the original invention, while the quoted inventions do not have old ingredients in the manufacturing process, and the quoted inventions also have the following self-converging before giving fluority to self-conging materials, while the original invention gives fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's fluor's own fluor's own fluor's own fluor's fluor's own.

(2) Meanwhile, the cited invention (2), (3) and (1) are compared to the cited invention (2), (2) and (3), and (2) are different from the cited invention, and even if the composition of the created substance is the same as that of the created substance, their nature and performance are different according to the manufacturing method. Since it is apparent that the quoted invention is a composition of a tin for permanent tin or its own tin material and it does not relate to the manufacturing method of tin, the scope of its rights are different from the original invention of the Republic of Korea, which is the manufacturing method of tin.

C. Thus, the original invention and the quoted invention are not only different in their purpose, technical composition, and effects, but also are deemed to have a new effect more than that predicted from the prior art publicly known in the application, and the technology applied for in this field is judged to have been significantly improved than the prior art, and therefore a person with ordinary knowledge in this field cannot easily conceal the original invention from the quoted invention, although the court below determined that the original invention could easily be seen from the quoted invention without properly reviewing this point, and therefore, the court below determined that the original invention could be seen from the cited invention without properly examining this point, and that such original decision erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of inventive step, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the trial decision, which points this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)