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

[2] The case holding that non-obviousness exists on the ground that the main invention differs from the cited example from the purpose, technical composition, and effect of the cited example, and is remarkably improved compared with the prior art

[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 a new technology that can be used for industrial purposes, and thus, to not obtain a patent, it shall be deemed that the invention lacks inventive step and is not capable of obtaining a patent. If it is deemed that the patent application has more advanced effects than those anticipated from the prior art publicly known in the patent application, and if it is determined that the patent application is remarkably improved than the prior art, in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the advancement and development of technology, it shall be deemed that the invention can not easily be seen by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of the technology to which the invention pertains, and thus,

[2] The case holding that the main invention and the quoted are non-obviousness on the ground that the specific purpose, technical composition, and operational effects are different, and the inducement board of the main invention are recognized to have been remarkably improved compared to the prior art in concentrating their own intent on the central part of the polarization, and therefore, the main invention is not easily made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology to which the invention pertains, and thus, it is not possible to make an invention by the quoted example.

[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] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1284 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2723), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1086 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2829), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2003 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2831), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2478 delivered on October 25, 1991 (Gong191, 2837), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1806 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2782)

Applicant (Patent Attorney Hong Jae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Na827 dated December 31, 1993

The original adjudication shall be reversed and remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. The provisions of Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same applies) purport of Article 6(2) of the same Act is to make an invention easily derived from a new technology available for industrial purposes, if the invention claimed in a patent application is a creation capable of being easily derived from a new technology available for industrial purposes, it shall be deemed lack of inventive step, and thus, it shall not be patentable. If it is deemed that the patent application has a new, risen effect above the expected effect from the prior art publicly known in the application, and if it is deemed that the technology claimed in the application is more significantly improved than the prior art, it shall be deemed that the invention can not be easily claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of the technology to which the invention pertains, and thus, it shall be patentable (see Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2003, Oct. 22, 199, etc.).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below judged that the 10th 6th mar (which would have been identical to the 1st mar, 6th mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 1 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 1 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 1 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar) mar mar mar 1 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar m mar mar m m m.

3. However, according to the records, the U-type 1 itself presented by the applicant is merely about 25% of the surface value in the two stimulations. However, if the leading board of the original invention is attached to the above tin, it can be known that the central self-sufficiency of the central government would considerably increase the power of the central government due to the role of the leading board of the original invention. Meanwhile, the original invention is for the purpose of raising the self-sufficiency of the central part of the pipelines in the two stimulations by inducing the erogating ray and removing them, and its core technical composition is against this, which is to constitute 10% of the surface value in the two circles, and thus, it is obvious that the central government's self-sufficiency would considerably increase the power of the central government's tin in terms of the erogicization of the main invention, and thus, it constitutes 10% of its own erogic ecogic ecogic ecogic ecogic ecogic 9).

4. Nevertheless, the court below held that the power cannot be concentrated by inducing the self-sufficiency to the straight line without making a proper deliberation as to whether the power can be concentrated by inducing the straight line to the straight line, and on this premise, the purpose, composition, and effect of the utility model invention is identical in comparison with the quoted example. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of inventive step by failing to properly grasp the summary of the two inventions, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the decision of the court below. Thus, the argument on this point is with merit.

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)