Standard for determining inventive step of a patented invention by citing various prior art documents

Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2005Hu3284 decided September 6, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1582)

U.S. Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Patent Attorney Park Sang-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2010Heo6782 Decided July 1, 2011

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

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

1. In determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art references, the inventive step of the patent invention concerned is denied in cases where it is recognized that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily combine the cited technology in light of the technical level at the time of the application of the patent invention in question, technical awareness, basic tasks of the relevant technical field, development tendency, demand of the relevant industry, etc., even though the cited technology is presented in the prior art literature or the motive, etc., that the cited technology can be combined with the relevant patent invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.).

2. In light of the above legal principles and records, we examine the inventive step of the claim 1 (hereinafter referred to as "claim 1 invention of this case") of the patented invention of this case (patent registration number omitted) named "in artificial structure, system, and method of construction" (hereinafter referred to as "patent registration number omitted, and other claims are also indicated in the same manner as other claims).

First of all, the composition 1 of the instant Claim No. 1’s decision of the lower court is comprised of technical contents “the person who forms the mold of a man-explos and has requisite support for the vertical iron bars and horizontal iron bars.” However, the composition of the instant Claim No. 1’s decision of the lower court starts with the composition of “the basic root (201) that was cuted and fixed by sculed in accordance with the design form of the support rod (90), artificial walls (200),” and “the basic part (202 mers) fixed above the basic part (201)” (hereinafter “202 mers”).

Next, the composition 2 of the instant Claim No. 1 in the holding of the lower judgment is the “sponsers installed in a shooting range between vertical iron bars.” Compared to the foregoing, the cited Invention 5 contains “202 merculations (203 hereinafter “203 mercs”) with the basic usage installed above 203 merculations. Compared Invention 5-203 merculations are installed outside of 202 merculations, which are substantially the same vertical and horizontal steel bars of 202 merculations, so it is somewhat different from the installation location of the instant Claim No. 1. 2 from the instant cited Invention 3 in terms of technical combination with other components of the instant Claim No. 1, and thus, it is not possible to form 200 merculations and 25 merculations, which have a substantial effect with respect to the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 with respect to the foregoing 202 merculations, as well.

Finally, the Composition 3 of the instant Claim No. 1’s decision of the lower court is “bes story which forms the surface by spraying liquid mixtures with a liquid concrete in the absence of domains,” and Composition 4 is “the artificial cancer which forms the appearance of artificial widths on the bes story floor,” and all of these compositions are already launched into the composition of “math (205) which spreads polys concrete at the top of 203 meat 203 meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat meat.”

Furthermore, the effect of improving internal strength, reducing the construction period due to lightization and structural simplification, and guaranteeing life expectancys, which can be achieved by integrating the whole of artificial explosions by adopting the composition 1 through 4 of the instant Claim No. 1, is also deemed to have already been possessed by comparable invention 5, or to be significant as possible from the combinations of comparable invention 3 and 5, and cannot be said to have been predicted.

Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 invention is denied since a person with ordinary skills can easily make an invention from comparable inventions 3 and 5. In addition, insofar as the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 invention is denied, it cannot be deemed that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 2, paragraphs 4 through 15, 17, and 18, which add and limit some elements, is naturally recognized, while including the technical characteristics, and it should be examined and determined as to whether the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 invention including the added and limited elements.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 cannot be denied on the ground that all of the elements of the instant Claim Nos. 2, (4) through (15), (17), and (18) invention could not be easily derived from comparable inventions 3,5, etc. by a person with ordinary skills. On such premise, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 2, (4) through (15), (17), and (18) invention is not denied. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)