[1] Requirements for falling under the so-called an omitted invention or the so-called unsatisfy use invention in a utility model

[2] The case holding that the omission invention or incomplete invention does not constitute the so-called omission invention on the ground that there is no slope angle control division, which is an essential element of the registered device concerning the "person who intends to protect infants for motor vehicles", in the (Ga) Item (a) invention concerning the "motor vehicle infant protection vision"

[1] In a case where multiple elements are stated in one claim, in principle, they are not included in the scope of a right in the claim, and they are not allowed to assert independent scope of protection among multiple elements. In order for a device to constitute an invention of omission or an invention of incomplete use which is deemed to fall under the scope of a right in a utility model because it is merely an intentional omission of part of the elements of a utility model to deviate from the scope of a right in a utility model, the invention of omission or an invention of incomplete use, which is deemed to fall under the scope of a right in a utility model, should be a case where a person has a professional engineer of the same utility model as a utility model, and even through the omission thereof, has relatively important elements in the scope of a registration request, and thus, a special action effect aimed at the utility model can not be seen as a case where the utility model cannot exert the main action effect for the purpose of a utility model due to lack

[2] The case holding that the omission invention or incomplete invention does not constitute the so-called omitted invention without the slope angle control division, which is an essential element of the registered device concerning the "person who intends to protect infants for motor vehicles", in the case of (a) Item (a) concerning the "motor vehicle infant protection vision"

[1] Article 25 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of September 23, 1998) / [2] Article 25 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of September 23, 1998) (see current Article 39)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Kim Won-sik, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Yellowjin (Patent Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board(Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) rendered a decision to revoke the decision on October 23, 1998 on the case No. 98Da575.

1. Facts that no dispute exists;

(a) Details of the procedure at the Korean Intellectual Property Office;

(1) On November 17, 1993, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a utility model and received a decision of registration on November 17, 1993 for the establishment of a utility model right with the registration number No. 9752 on June 24, 1996 (hereinafter “the aforementioned device”).

(2) The defendant filed a petition for a trial to confirm the scope of the right in the registered complaint with the plaintiff as the respondent, alleging that (a) a device concerning "the time frame for protecting young children for motor vehicles" (hereinafter referred to as "(a)") as stated in the following (c) and the annexed drawing 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the device") differs from the registered complaint and technical composition, and that (a) a device does not fall under the scope of the right in the registered complaint. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal reviewed the above request for a trial on October 23, 1998 and rendered a trial decision (hereinafter referred to as "the trial decision") that "(a) device does not fall under the scope of the right in the registered complaint" for the same reasons as (d) below (hereinafter referred to as "the decision").

B. Summary of this case's registered appeal

이 건 등록고안을 도면으로 표시한 것이 별지 도면 2.이고, 그 등록청구의 범위는 "1. 등받이부(2, 위 도면에 표시되어 있는 번호이고, 이하 같다)와 좌판부(3) 및 양측면판(4)(4')을 에어튜브로 된 본체(1)로 형성하고 등받이부(2)에는 고정밴드가 설치되며 좌판부(3)에는 지지구(6)가 부착된 자동차용 유아 보호 의자에 있어서, 의자 본체(1)를 등받이부(2)와 좌판부(3) 및 양 측면판(4)(4')으로 나누어지게 형성하여 각각 에어가 주입되게 하고, 등받이부(2)와 좌판부(3)의 양측에 형성되어 있는 측면판(4)(4')에는 경사각도 조절부(7)를 설치하며, 등받이부(2)의 양측 상, 하에는 체결공(8)을 형성하여 안전벨트부(9)를 설치하고, 좌판부(3)에는 양 측면에 고정클립(10)이 부착되어 있는 T형의 지지구(6)를 설치하여서 된 것을 특징으로 하는 자동차용 유아 보호 의자, 2. 제1항에 있어서, 등받이부(2)와 좌판부(3)의 양 측면판(4)(4')에 통풍공(36)이 형성되어 있는 것을 특징으로 하는 자동차용 유아 보호 의자, 3. 제1항에 있어서, 상기 등받이의 경사각도 조절부(7)는 양 측면판(4)(4')의 접지면에 절첩부(11)가 형성되어 있는 부채꼴 형상의 절첩편(12)을 형성하고 절첩편(12)의 양측 상, 하에는 체결공(14)을 형성하며 내측 절첩부(11')의 양측으로 장공(13)을 형성하고, 일측 체결공(14)에서 고정끈(15)을 삽입하여 장공(13)을 관통한 다음 타측의 삽입공으로 고정끈(15)이 돌출되게 하여 압착시 고정구(16)로 고정하여서 된 것을 특징으로 하는 자동차용 유아 보호 의자, 4. 제1항에 있어서, 경사각도 조절부(7)의 등받이(2)와 좌판부(3)의 전, 후 양 측면판(4)(4')에 돌출부(17)(17')를 형성하여 각 체결구(18)와 고정구(19)가 부착되어 있는 고정끈(20)을 체결하여 체결구(18)에서 고정끈(20)의 길이를 조절할 수 있도록 하여서 된 것을 특징으로 하는 자동차용 유아 보호 의자, 5. 제1항에 있어서, 안전벨트(22)의 양측에는 고정구와 체결구를 부착하고 중앙부 양측에는 체결구(23)가 부착되어 있는 고정끈(24)을 설치하며 고정끈(24)에는 부드러운 직물(25)을 감싸고 고정끈(24)의 하단부에 부착되어 있는 체결구(23)를 지지구(6)의 고정구(30)에 체결하여서 된 것을 특징으로 하는 자동차용 유아 보호 의자, 6. 제1항에 있어서, T형 지지구(6)를 에어튜브로 형성하되 외부에는 부드러운 직물(26)로 감싸고, 지지구(6)의 전면에는 양측에 고정클립(29)을 고정 설치하며 중앙 양측에는 고정구(30)를 설치하여 안전벨트(22)의 체결구(23)와 체결하여서 된 것을 특징으로 하는 자동차용 유아 보호 의자, 7. 제1항에 있어서, 좌판부(3)의 양 측면판(4') 외부에 벨크로테이프(31)를 부착하고, 받침판(32)의 상부에는 에어튜브로 된 테두리(33)를 형성하며 받침판(32)의 양측에는 벨크로테이프(34)가 부착되어 있는 고정밴드(35)를 일체로 형성하여 양 측면판(4')의 상부에 설치하여서 된 것을 특징으로 하는 자동차용 유아 보호 의자"이다.

C. (A) Summary of the heading device;

(a)The specifications indicate the heading device by drawing are 1.C.(1)(the first degree map is 1.3 degrees, the third degree is s/Dos, the third degree is s/Dos installed in the driver’s length of vehicles), its summary is with respect to the laying sets of motor vehicles for the protection of young children in order to prevent young children from falling off or getting out of the crypt or doctor’s length when she sits on the string of motor vehicles or various strings, and is combined with the upper part(2) above the upper part(s) of the upper upper part(s) and the upper part(s)(1)(s)(s)(s)(2 above the upper part(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(1 above the upper part(s)(s)(s)(2 above the upper part(s)(s)(s)(3)(s)(8)(s)(2 above the upper part(s)(s)(3)(s)(3)(s)(2 above)(s)(8)(s)(3)(3)(3) and 62 below(s)(s)(8)(3)(es)(es)(1)(es)(3)(es)(es)(1)(3)(1)(es)(1)(es)(es)(1).

D. Summary of the grounds for the trial decision

This decision was made as follows.

(1) In comparison with the device under Paragraph 1 (a) of the scope of the claim for registration of the instant registered device (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 1") and the device under Paragraph 1 (a) of this Article, the two devices are identical to those designed to ensure the safety of young children in the course of operating an automobile. However, in the composition of the claim 1, the device under the Claim 1 is formed into the body of the chair, the board and both sides, respectively, with a fixed line set up in the gate, and the gate set up in the gate to form the chair for the protection of young children. The characteristics of the section are recognized as the publicly known technology, and the safety bell installed in the two sides, such as the sloping map installed in the two sides, the safety bell installed in the two sides, the safety bell installed in the two sides, and the support board installed in the part of the vehicle register and the gate installed in the part of the vehicle register, and thus, the two parts of the device are safe in the two parts of the design installed in the gate and the device installed in the two parts.

(2) In addition, the claims Nos. 2 through 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claims Nos. 2 to 7' of the instant registered device are technically limited and embodied in claims Nos. 1 of this case, and the claims Nos. 1 of this case are different from the (a) device without need to prepare for any extent that the device No. 1 of this case is different from the device No. 1 of this case.

(3) Accordingly, a sub-paragraph (a) does not fall within the scope of the right in the registered complaint.

2. Grounds for revoking the trial decision of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, for the following reasons, the (a) design falls under the scope of the right in the registered complaint, so this case's trial decision should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

가. 이 건 등록고안과 (가)호 고안은 다같이 자동차에 탑승한 어린이가 급제동시 앞으로 튕겨나가는 위험을 방지하기 위하여 자동차 시트에 착탈식으로 설치하는 어린이용 보호 의자인 점에서 목적은 물론이고 사용 용도와 장착되는 위치 및 착탈식이라는 점이 동일하다.

(4) In individual cases, the parts of the two devices are the same in terms of the same category as the alternative shape, structure, and combination with the parts of the building at the 4th floor of the building, and the difference between the two devices is not likely to interfere with the recognition of the identity of the two devices, and the difference between the two devices is not likely to interfere with the conclusion of the building at the 4th floor of the building and the building at the 6th floor of the building, and the remaining parts of the building at the 6th floor of the building at the 5th floor of the building at the building at the building at the building at the building and the building at the building at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level at the building level.

C. Ultimately, (a) a heading device is in the relationship between this registered device and its use and promotion.

3. Determination

A. First, in order to determine whether a (a) invention falls under the scope of the right under paragraph 1 of this case’s claims, the scope of the right under paragraph 1 of this case’s claims shall be determined and considered to be determined.

(1) 앞에서 인정한 바와 같이 이 건 청구범위 제1항의 고안은 "등받이부(2)와 좌판부(3) 그리고 양 측면판(4)(4')으로 구분되어져 있고 그 각각이 에어가 주입되는 에어튜브로 형성되어 있는 의자 본체(1), ② 양 측면에 고정클립(10, 29)이, 상단부분에 고정구(30)가 부착되어 좌판부(3) 위에 설치되는 T형의 지지구(6){등록청구범위에는 아무런 기재가 없으나 명세서 중 상세한 설명의 기재에 의하면 지지구(6)는 하단에 설치되는 고정구(28)와 좌판부(3)의 중앙에 설치되는 체결구(27)에 의하여 붙였다 뗐다 할 수 있게 되어 있다}, ③ 등받이부(2)와 좌판부(3)의 경사각도를 조절하는 경사각도 조절부(7), ④ 등받이부(2)의 양측 상, 하에 체결공(8)을 형성하여 삽입 체결되는 안전벨트(22)와 이에 부착되어 지지구(6)의 고정구(30)에 체결되는 고정끈(24)을 포함하는 안전벨트부(9){명세서 중 등록청구의 범위에 의하면 고정끈(24)은 제1항의 구성요소는 아니고 제1항의 종속항인 제5항의 구성요소이지만, 실용신안의 상세한 설명에서는 고정끈(24)이 안전벨트(22)에 고정적으로 부착되어 안전벨트(22)와 함께 제1항의 구성요소 중 하나인 안전벨트부(9)를 구성하는 것으로 기재되어 있으므로, 일단 고정끈(24)도 이 건 청구범위 제1항의 구성요소 중 하나로 인정하기로 한다.}로 구성되어 있다.

(2) On the other hand, according to the statements in Gap evidence No. 2 as to the publicly known technology prior to the application for the registration of this case, it can be recognized that the Loury Proxa Inc. published pictures such as the attached Form No. 3 of the "Neworns, Inc., Inc., Inc." (hereinafter referred to as the " children's vision") as well as pictures, such as the attached Form No. 3 of the "No. 1992", are published at the end of the shoulder belt connected to the receiver.

(3) However, among the above elements of claims in paragraph (1) of this case, it can be known that the elements of this case are identical between ①, etc. (2), ② the main body of the body of the deceased, (3), and (4) (4)(4), ② the T-type land (6), and ③ the string (24) (24) connecting the upper part (6) with the upper part (3), etc. (6) of the upper part (3), “the string (24)” in the cited part of the cited part, and the body of the body of the deceased part (1) with the upper part (1) and the upper part and the upper part (6). The above elements are the technologies prior to the application for the registration of the new part (1) prior to the application for the registration of the new part (2).

B. Next, the claims as referred to in paragraph 1 of this case consisting of ① the light (2) and the coordinate (3) and both sides (4) and (4) (4) respectively, in which they are influorcated, ② a fixed garret (10,29) and a fixed apparatus (30) are attached to T-type land (6). ③ a slope angle control (7), a slope angle control unit (2) and a board (30), a slope angle control unit (7), and a safety level (22) (22) ( according to the detailed explanation and drawings of the specifications) which are inserted by forming a factory (22) and inserted into a conclusion line (22) [the device appears to be fixed in the original line, etc.)].

(1) First, with respect to (a) a slope angle control unit (7) a slope angle control unit (2) and a plane table (3) a slope angle control unit (7), no such device shall be composed.

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that, in the claim 1 of this case, the slope angle control division (7) is not an essential element, but an additional element, and merely an additional element, the (a) device lacks the slope angle control division, so long as other composition is the same, the claim 1 of this case is subject to the scope of rights.

On the other hand, in a case where multiple elements of a claim are stated in a single claim, one of them does not fall under the scope of the right to the claim, in principle, and it is not allowed to assert independent scope of protection on multiple elements. In order for a device to fall under a so-called omitted invention or an incomplete invention, which is deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the utility model because it is merely a intentional omission of part of the elements of a utility model to deviate from the scope of the right to the utility model, the device is deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the utility model. In order to fall under the so-called omitted invention or an incomplete invention, which is deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the utility model, because it has the same professional engineer as the utility model, and even if it is omitted, it shall be a case where the utility model can exert a special action effect aimed at the utility model in question, and it shall not be deemed to fall

그러므로 경사각도 조절부(7)가 이 건 청구범위 제1항의 필수적 구성요소인지에 관하여 보건대, 을 제1호증의 기재에 의하면, 이 건 등록고안에 대한 명세서 중 상세한 설명에 "(종래의 유아 보호 의자는) 에어튜브가 의자의 형상모양으로 고정되어 있기 때문에 유아가 앉은 자리에서 그 상태 그대로 있어야 함으로써 불편한 단점이 있었으며, ……의자의 형태 그대로 유아가 누워있기 때문에 유아가 불편함을 느껴 잠을 자지 못하고 울어대는 등의 문제점이 있었다. ……본 고안은 상기와 같은 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 안출한 것으로서……"(92면 중하단), "가정이나 야외에서 유아를 뉘어 놓을 때에는 ……경사각도 조절부(7)를 최대로 하여 등받이(2)가 후면으로 절첩하여 지면에 닿게 하고 T형의 지지구(6)를 분리하여 유아를 뉘는 매트리스로도 사용할 수가 있으며, 좌판부(3)의 T형 지지구(6)는 분리하여 베개로 사용하거나 완구 또는 방석으로 사용하여도 바람직하다"(93면 하단)고 기재되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정 사실에 의하면, 경사각도 조절부(7)는 종래의 기술이 가지고 있는 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 채택되어진 필수적인 구성요소이고, 이 건 청구범위 제1항은 자동차에 탑승한 어린이가 급제동시 앞으로 튕겨나가는 위험을 방지한다는 목적과 아울러 위의 문제점을 해결할 목적도 가지고 있으므로, 이 건 청구범위 제1항을 해석함에 있어서 경사각도 조절부(7)가 구성요소에서 제외될 수 없으며, 그 반면에 (가)호 고안은 이와 같은 경사각도 조절부가 없더라도 완성품으로서 그 목적인 자동차의 운행중 시트에 앉혀 놓은 유아가 시트로부터 떨어지거나 이탈되는 것을 방지하는 기능을 충분히 수행할 수 있으므로, (가)호 고안이 이 건 청구범위 제1항의 고안의 생략발명 또는 불완전 이용발명에 해당한다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없고, 이와 같은 경사각도 조절부(7)을 구성을 결여하고 있는 (가)호 고안은 이 건 청구범위 제1항의 권리범위에 속하지 아니한다.

(2) Furthermore, we examine other components.

(A) (A) The floor section (1) and the upper part of the device (2) are not specified in the manual, but the upper part of the device (1) and the upper part (1) are not specified in the manual; (a) the upper part of the device (3) is not specified in the upper part of the device; and (b) the upper part of the device (1) is the upper part of the device (1) and the upper part (2) is composed of the material such as the upper part (1) and the upper part (1) and the upper part (2) are composed of the upper part (3). In light of the fact that the upper part of the device (1) and the upper part (2) are children, the upper part (1) and the upper part of the device (2) are a simple horizontal part made of the upper part (1) and the upper part (2) is not disputed, and there is no dispute as to this. (a) The parties concerned are composed of the upper part (4) parts (1) and 4 (2) parts (3) parts (4) and (2) parts (1) of the upper part (4).

(B) In addition, paragraph (1) of the instant claims: (4) of the instant claims: (a) contains both sides and under paragraph (2) of the brush (2) of the brush (2) to fix the brush (2) to the original crush of the motor vehicle; (b) the safety level (22) is to be inserted into the crush (22) by forming the crush (8). However, the instant claims are different from the instant claims claims 1 in that: (a) the devices do not contain any such elements; and (b) the crush (2) and the crush (8) are connected to the upper strush (7) and the upper strush (7) are connected to the upper strush (9) and 2) with the upper strush (10).

(C) Finally, with respect to the composition attached to a fixed-type (10,29) and a fixed-type (30) to T-type (6) of claims Nos. 1 of this case, it is difficult to determine which level is fixed to a fixed-type (10,29) even after examining all detailed descriptions or drawings, including the scope of claims for registration of the specifications as to this case’s registered-type and the scope of claims for registration of this case’s registered-type (10,29). As such, it is difficult to compare the above composition with the devices of subparagraph (a).

C. Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, (a) the elements of the instant Claim No. 1, excluding the publicly known technology, among those described in the instant Claim No. 1, do not exist in the composition itself, or their composition is different (if there is a partial similar composition other than the publicly known technology, this is extremely insignificant part). Therefore, (a) the instant Claim No. 1 cannot be deemed as in the relationship of utilization and promotion with the device described in paragraph 1 of the instant Claim No. 1, and it does not fall under the scope of the right to claim the instant Claim No. 1.

D. In addition, paragraphs 2 through 7 of this case’s claims are dependent upon the addition of the air circulation (36) under paragraph 1 of this case’s claims to the air circulation (2), the addition of the 17’s protruding (17’s) and the 20’s fastening (20’s), the addition of the string (24), the addition of the string (22) and the 22’s fastening (6) to the string (30’s), or the addition of the string (5), the addition of the string (7) and the string (32), the addition of the string (7) embodying the string (7) to the stringing (6) of the stringing land (6), so long as the nding device does not fall within the scope of the right to claim a device under paragraph 1 of this case’s claims, the nding design does not fall within the scope of the right to claim a device under paragraphs 2 through 7 of this case’s.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is justified in the instant trial ruling that the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and that (a) the device does not fall under the scope of the right in the instant registered petition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Senior Superintendent (Presiding Judge)