[1] The case holding that the invention of correction of paragraphs (1) through (12) of the patented invention, which is "Recording medium recording the Chinese teaching material and the teaching material for animation" in its name, constitutes an invention utilizing the natural law that can enhance academic effects by systematically organizing visual arrangement

[2] The case holding that the effects of the corrected invention cannot be seen to vary to the extent that the correction invention of the patented invention "the recording medium recording the Chinese teaching material and the animation Chinese teaching material" can not be seen as having changed to the extent that it is difficult for the person executing the invention

[3] In the case of commercial sales conducted against many and unspecified persons without direct connection with the exhibition of the EXPO, whether it can be seen as “an invention which is not a public figure, etc.” under Article 30(1) of the former Patent Act (negative)

[4] Whether the inventive step of a patented invention can be recognized solely on the ground that there are circumstances such as commercial success of the product of the patented invention, or there was no person who had been worked for a long time prior to the application for the patented invention (negative), and the method

[5] The case holding that the non-obviousness is not recognized on the grounds that the correction invention of paragraphs (8) through (11) of the patented invention whose name is “a medium recording Chinese textbooks and animation Chinese teaching material” can be easily derived from comparable inventions 1 and publicly notified art, which are the teaching material for oriental learning as defined in subparagraph 1

[1] The case holding that since the correction invention in paragraphs (1) through (12) of the patented invention, "the recording medium in which the name "Korean characters and animation teaching materials" is "the recording medium in which animations animations is recorded, it is an invention that uses the natural law that can enhance academic effects by inserting the cartoon image related to one person who can learn in the main text of the teaching material in connection with the stories so that learners can learn effectively through cartoon images, etc., each part of which is spatial and physical arrangement and formation is conducted, it constitutes an invention that uses the natural law that can enhance academic effects by systematically organizing visual arrangement.

[2] The case holding that since the correction invention of a patented invention whose name "the recording medium recording the Chinese teaching material and the Chinese teaching material for animation" is about a classic cartoon and its technical field is about a cartoon and animation industry, if an ordinary technician in the technical field to which the invention belongs is likely to easily and repeatedly implement the correction invention using the technical means initiated in the correction invention, and the effect of the correction invention is likely to be different as well as the case of the correction invention, and the same is applicable to the other invention, and the degree of difference is likely to occur as a result of the inventor in the effects of the correction invention, and in determining whether the correction invention has repeated reproduction, the author of the invention shall be deemed to be an ordinary technician in the cartoon and animation industry, which is the technical field to which the correction invention belongs, so it cannot be deemed that the effects of the correction invention are different to the extent that it is difficult

[3] The purport of Article 30(1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of Mar. 3, 2006), which recognizes the exception of loss of newness in disclosing an invention due to testing, publication through telecommunication lines, publication via telecommunication lines as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, written publication by academic organizations as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, and exhibition of exhibitions, etc., is to facilitate the development of industrial technology, thereby protecting the industrial technology as a patent by recognizing newness under certain procedural requirements, thereby ensuring the development of industry, and to protect the public confidence and ensure predictability. Accordingly, the exception of disclosure in the case of exhibition at a fair is limited to the display of the exhibition and the display of the exhibition, and it is not possible to recognize the exception of the public announcement to commercial sales activities against many and unspecified persons without direct connection with the exhibition at a fair.

[4] Circumstances such as the commercial success of a product of a patented invention or the absence of a person who has worked for a long time prior to the filing of the patent application can be considered as one material to recognize inventive step, but such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the recognition of inventive step. The determination of inventive step of a patented invention should first be based on whether an ordinary skilled person can easily make an invention based on prior art based on the content, i.e., the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention, and thus, the inventive step of the invention

[5] The case holding that the inventive step is not recognized since the invention of paragraphs (8) through (12) of the patented invention whose name is "the recording medium recording the Chinese textbooks and the teaching materials for animation" is identical to the comparable invention 1 and the technical field and purpose, which are the teaching materials for animation as defined in subparagraph 1, and its elements can be easily derived from the identical invention and the prior art, and the combination of elements is not technical difficulty and its effect is limited to the extent generally anticipated.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29 (1) of the Patent Act / [3] Article 30 (1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006) / [4] Article 29 (2) of the Patent Act / [5] Article 29 (2) of the Patent Act

[4] Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu1512 Decided November 12, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3052 Decided May 29, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 931)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Choi Jong-he et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 17, 2009

1. The part of the trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 17, 2008, with respect to the case No. 1694 on December 2007, excluding the corrected part, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 17, 2008 on the case No. 2007Da1694 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Defendant’s patented invention

(a) Name: Recording media recording the Chinese teaching material and the teaching material for animation; and

(2) Date of application (date of priority filing) / Registration date / Registration number: May 4, 2005 ( May 4, 2004) / June 14, 2006/No. 592036

(3) Claims and major drawings: (a) the inventions described in the claims prior to the correction (hereinafter referred to as “instant patent invention”; and (b) the inventions described in the individual claims shall be described as “instant Claim No. 1 invention, etc.” with corresponding numbers attached thereto.

(b) Cited inventions;

(1) Cited Invention 1, 2, 3

Invention 1: On November 2003, the comparable invention 2: around January 2004; the comparable invention 3, respectively, on April 2004, the term “math Law Advice” published on the first board, respectively, means the teaching materials for oriental learning referred to in subparagraph 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the above oriental learning teaching materials are published and sold before the priority date of the patented invention in this case (no dispute is raised as to the fact that the above oriental learning materials are published and sold before the priority date of the patented invention in this case) respectively.

These cited inventions are teaching materials published as a business, and the main drawings of comparable inventions 1 are as shown in attached Form 1, and the drawings of comparable inventions 2 and 3 are different from those of the corresponding inventions 2 and 3, and the composition is the same.

(2) Cited Invention 4

The term "game for Chinese learning" as stated in the Utility Model Gazette for Registration (Registration Number: No. 341210) of February 11, 2004 (No. 21) and its main contents and drawings are as listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Form 2.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

(1) The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration by asserting that the patented invention of this case cannot be deemed an invention utilizing the law of nature, and that the patented invention of this case has been invalidated by its publicly notified act prior to the filing date (the date of the priority claim; hereinafter referred to as “priority date”), and that the patented invention of this case has no newness or inventive step compared with the prior art, and that the new matter was added by amendment during the filing

(2) In the registration invalidation trial procedure as described in paragraph (2) of the above [Attachment 1], the defendant filed a correction request with the contents of correcting the part of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter the correction "the correction of this case", and the invention described in the claims after the correction "the correction of this case"; hereinafter "the correction invention of this case" is referred to as "the correction invention of this case"; when the invention described in an individual claim is added to "the correction invention of this case", the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal received the correction request from the defendant, and subsequently, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that there is no ground for invalidation of the plaintiff's assertion in the correction invention of this case.

2. Whether the correction of this case is lawful

A. The contents of the correction of this case were corrected to the bottom part of paragraphs 1 and 8 of the claim prior to the correction as stated in Paragraph 1 of attached Table 1 (attached Form 1) by the bottom part of paragraphs 1 and 8 of the same attached Table after the correction as stated in Paragraph 2 of the same attached Table (the "blick" as stated in Paragraph 1 of the claim after the correction is deemed to be the clerical error of the "glick", and thus, it is indicated as "glick" (hereinafter referred

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the correction of this case constitutes unlawful because there is a qualitative difference in the composition of the First and Eight inventions of this case, and accordingly a big difference in the effect of the invention, as the composition of the First and Eight inventions of this case prior to the correction newly added “the class character is external according to the development of the above group” to the composition of the First and Eight inventions of this case prior to the correction, and thus, the meaning of Chinese characters in the case of the First and Eight inventions of this case and the features to determine the urban order between elements to ensure that cartoon images are urbanized after the sound appeared.

C. The correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is a correction of the cartoon image in the composition of Claim 1 of this case as "the cartoon image of a Korean cartoon, which is related to the story and its Chinese characters, together with the cartoon image related to the Chinese characters' meaning and sound, as seen above, and the meaning and sound of the Chinese cartoon, the Chinese character's external appearance according to the development of the story, the Chinese character, and the Chinese character's expression and sound are corrected as "the cartoon image of a Korean cartoon, which is urban, along with the cartoon image to indicate its Chinese character's own intent according to its external invasion."

In contrast to the two parts, there is no difference in that the cartoon image indicating the relevant Chinese, Chinese, and Chinese, and Chinese, is displayed on the face of the Korean cartoon image, and in the case of the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, there is only difference between the meaning of the Chinese, Chinese, and Chinese, and the character appearing in the case of the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case and the character appearing.

In the case of the instant Claim No. 1, the meaning and sound of the Chinese cartoon image city are related to the stoma. In the case of the instant Claim No. 1, the meaning and sound of the Chinese cartoon image is related to the Chinese characters. In the case of the instant Claim No. 1, the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 is merely the degree of embodying “the relationship between the Chinese characters, etc., to the city,” and the instant Claim No. 1.

As above, both the instant Claim No. 1 and the instant Correction Claim No. 1 are organized along with a cartoon image indicating the relevant Chinese characters, Chinese characters, sound, and Chinese characters on the urban page of the cartoon image. The instant Correction Claim No. 1 is limited to embodying the relationship between the “ Chinese characters, Chinese characters, and sound,” and “story” in the instant Claim No. 1 invention. Thus, it is difficult to deem that there is a qualitative difference in the technical composition, such as changing the urban order of the constituent elements, or that there is a significant difference in the learning effect.

Therefore, the amendment invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is merely a reduction of claims due to the addition of simple elements, and the scope of claims cannot be deemed a substantial change.

D. The corrective invention of Paragraph 8 of this case, among the composition of Claim 8 of this case, was corrected to “the specific act performed by the characters appearing in the middle where the video cartoons are reproduced according to a particular story” part of Claim 8 as “the characters appearing in the middle where the video cartoons are reproduced according to a particular story,” which was corrected to “the external appearance according to the specific act performed by the characters appearing in the middle where the video cartoons are reproduced according to a particular story.”

In the case of the Claim 8 invention of this case, a specific act conducted by the character is related to the stones. The Claim 8 invention of this case is embodying that specific act related to the stostos as "an act to conduct". Thus, it is difficult to view that there is a qualitative difference in the technical composition, such as a change in the urban order of the elements, or there is a significant difference in the learning effect. Thus, the claim 8 invention of this case cannot be deemed to have been substantially modified.

E. Ultimately, since the instant correction satisfies the requirements of Articles 133-2(4) and 136(3) of the Patent Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3. Whether the corrected invention of this case constitutes an invention under the Patent Act

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the purpose and effect of the correction invention of this case, which is to maximize the effects of Chinese learning, is not a matter of course that can be achieved naturally from the composition of the correction invention of this case, but a combination of subjective subjective elements, such as learning ability of the trainee as well as the academic ability of the trainee as to the expression of the picture, and the annual action of the trainee as to the character of cartoons, is determined by the combination of subjective elements of the trainee's character, such as the stove, the academic ability of the trainee as to the expression of the cartoon, and the annual action of the trainee as to the character of cartoons, so the correction invention of this case is not a part of the law of nature. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the purpose and effect of the correction invention of this case, which is to maximize the effects of Korean learning, is not a matter of course that can be achieved from the composition of the correction invention of this case.

B. Whether to apply the law of nature

(1) The corrective invention of Paragraph (1) of this case is an invention of an object called a Chinese learning teaching material, and takes a structure that allows a Chinese character to be urbanized along with a Chinese character display book, the relevant Chinese character display book, and the cartoon image display book indicating the relevant Chinese character, and one person appearing in the Chinese cartoon image urban area, in order to enhance the learning effect through visual images such as cartoons.

The correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case constitutes spatial, physical placement, or formation of each of the above indications on the ground of the spatial meaning of the one-way cartoon image city, and it seems that the one who appeared in the urban area together with the image structure of the one-way cartoon is related to the story, so that the one who appeared in the urban area can have interest in the one-way class, and that one-way class can be achieved effectively.

Ultimately, the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case is an invention using a natural rule (refer to the evidence No. 17-2, 26 pages) that can enhance the learning effect by inserting the cartoon image related to a person who can learn in the main text of the teaching material in relation to the cartoon image so that the learner can learn effective self-learning through cartoon image, etc., and where the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case takes the composition of spatial and physical arrangement or formation of each part of the cartoon image urban area, and thus, it is an invention using the natural rule (refer to the evidence No. 17-2, 26 pages) that can enhance the learning effect by systematically organizing visual arrangement. In holding the correction invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, even if the mental judgment of the performer is to some extent in the selection and development of the story, and the selection of the person appearing, it is merely a judgment as a minimum mental action required for the implementation of the ordinary invention, and it cannot be deemed that Paragraph 1 of this case's correction invention of this case is a human mental action and judgment.

(2) As long as the amendment invention of Paragraph (1) of this case is recognized as an invention utilizing the law of nature, the amendment invention of Articles 2 through 7, and 12, which are subordinate claims technically limiting or embodying the composition of the amendment invention of Paragraph (1) of this case, shall also be deemed as an invention utilizing the law of nature.

(3) In addition, the correction invention of Paragraph (8) of this case changed the form of “heri Chinese teaching material” of Paragraph (1) of this case into “animation recording medium” and as long as the correction invention of Paragraph (1) of this case is recognized as an invention utilizing natural law, the correction invention of Paragraph 8 of this case and the correction invention of Paragraph 9, 10, and 11 of this case, which are subordinate claims thereto, are also an invention utilizing natural law.

(4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant corrected invention does not constitute an invention under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Patent Act, because it does not use the law of nature.

(c) Whether there is a possibility of repeated reproduction or industrial applicability;

The correction invention of this case is related to learning cartoons and its technical field is the cartoon and animation industry. Thus, if a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”), it seems that the correction invention of this case can be easily conducted by using the technical means commenced in the correction invention of this case.

In addition, the same applies not only to the case of the corrected invention in this case, but also to the case of other inventions, which may cause a certain difference in its effects depending on the inventor of the invention in this case. In determining whether the invention in this case is repeated, in light of the fact that the inventor of the invention in this case should be regarded as an ordinary technician in the cartoon and the animation industry, to which the corrected invention in this case belongs, the effects of the corrected invention in this case are different to the extent that it is difficult for the inventor to repeatedly conduct the corrected invention in this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the correction invention of this case does not constitute an invention under the main text of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act because it is not repeated.

4. Whether the invention of this case is new in accordance with paragraphs 1 through 7 of this case

A. Whether the corrective invention of this case was published prior to the priority date

Inasmuch as the composition of the instant Claims 1 through 7 has been initiated respectively in the cited Invention 1, 2, and 3 (with respect to this part, there is no dispute between the parties), the instant Claims 1 through 7 of this case shall be deemed to have been publicly announced by the cited Invention 1 through 7 of this case prior to the relevant priority date. Unless there are special circumstances, newness shall not be acknowledged in the instant corrected inventions.

B. Whether the sale of Chinese learning materials in comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3 constitutes an exception to publication

(1) The defendant's assertion

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the publication and sale of Chinese learning materials for comparable invention 1, 2, and 3 are related closely to the exhibition of the exhibition at the exhibition under Article 30 (1) 3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006; hereinafter the same) and thus, newness is recognized in the corrected invention of this case since it constitutes an exception to publication.

(2) Relevant legal provisions

According to Articles 30(1)3, 29(1)1, and 30(2) of the former Patent Act, where a person who has the right to obtain a patent has displayed the invention at an exhibition, and the invention is known or publicly worked before the patent application, if the patent application is filed within six months from the applicable date, the invention shall be deemed neither publicly known nor publicly worked before the patent application is filed, nor shall the patent be invalidated. A person who intends to obtain such provision shall submit a document stating the purport to the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office at the same time as the patent application and submit the document proving it to the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office within 30 days from the filing date of the patent application.

(3) Facts recognized

[Ground for Recognition: Evidence No. 4 through 8 (including each number), Evidence No. 1-4, Evidence No. 1-10, the purport of the whole pleadings]

(A) On November 13, 2003, the first right was sent to the “DICN 2003” organized by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which was held on November 13, 2003, and the marks of the first, second, second, and fourth, fourth, third, and fourth, are listed in the posters attached to the above exhibition. The first, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, and fourth, third, third, third, and third, third, third, third, and third, third, third, etc. of the corrective invention of this case.

(B) On May 4, 2005, the defendant claimed the priority of the domestic patent application No. 2004-31480 (the filing date: May 4, 2004) as the earlier application at the time of patent application for the corrected invention of this case. The defendant submitted a document to the effect that the corrected invention of this case was exhibited in the above exhibition and disclosed to the public for the first time, and submitted the evidentiary document (Evidence No. 5) on May 24, 2005, within 30 days from the filing date.

(4) Determination

(A) The purport of Article 30(1) of the former Patent Act that recognizes an exception to loss of newness in the disclosure of an invention due to testing, publication, publication via telecommunication lines as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, publication in writing at academic organizations as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, and exhibition in a fair exhibition is to facilitate the development of industrial technology, thereby ensuring the development of industry thereby promoting the development of industrial technology and ensuring the protection of public confidence and predictability, by recognizing it as a patent under certain procedural requirements with respect to such disclosure.

Therefore, it is limited to the display of the EXPO and the acts closely related thereto (e.g., the degree of experimental sale or distribution to visitors at the EXPO site) in the event of the exhibition of the EXPO, and it is not possible to recognize the exception of the public announcement to the commercial sales activities conducted against many and unspecified persons without direct relation to the exhibition of the EXPO.

(B) In light of the fact that the Defendant displayed the right to advise 1 on marina Law at the above exhibition corresponding to the exhibition prescribed in the above Article of the Act, and registered the mark of the right to consult 1, 2, and the title of the right to consult 3, 4 with the posters of the exhibition, the commercial sales of the right to consult 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall not be deemed as an exception to the publication under Article 30 (1) 3 of the former Patent Act, not a new publicly notified act as a new publicly notified act, which is not an act closely unreasonable with the display of the above exhibition (the right to consult 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall not be deemed as being displayed at the posters of the above exhibition, and it cannot be deemed as being displayed at the above exhibition). The Defendant’s assertion that the sales of the right to consult 1, 2, 3, and 4 rights after the display constitutes an exception to the sale of the right to consult 1, 3, and 4 rights.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, the corrective invention of the first to seventh of this case is not new, and its registration is null and void.

5. Whether the inventive step of the corrective invention of this case was made

A. The corrective invention under Paragraph 8 of this case

(i)technology and purpose;

The correction invention of Paragraph 8 of this case is an invention on the recording medium in which the classic cartoon is recorded, and the comparable invention 1 is an invention on the cartoon book, and the form of the teaching material is different in that the invention is an invention on the teaching material in which the cartoon is recorded, and these inventions are identical in its technical field and purpose in that they are teaching materials for Chinese learning using cartoons.

(2) Technical composition

(A) Identification of components

The elements of the correction invention of this case under Paragraph 8 are as follows: ① in the recording media recording medium in which animation, including the original image book in which animation cartoon is reproduced according to a stogram and a stogram composed of a stogram of animation, which is reproduced by a media reproduction device and the the theme of animation (hereinafter “class 1”); ② This image book is understood as recording media recording medium in which animation is recorded (hereinafter “class 4 elements”) composed of characters appearing in the middle in which aimation is reproduced according to a specific stogram connected with the above stogram, with the appearance of animation and sound, and at the same time, they are displayed on the screen (hereinafter “class 2”), and ③ the image image book in which animation is recorded so that animation is displayed by continuous action on the screen (hereinafter “class 3 elements”).

(b) component 1, 4

Technologies made of learning teaching materials, such as language, as animation, and recorded them in the recording medium reproduced by media recycling device, have been published prior to the priority date of the invention of this case (Evidence A, 18, 19, 20). The composition of “laters comprising an animation framework and the theme of animation” in the constituent element 1 corresponds to the indication of comparable invention 1 and the indication of “later for animation of animation” (in addition to the the subject of animation, the composition of adding theme is a simple selection of a person with ordinary skills without any difficulty), and “the image book in which a video cartoon is reproduced according to a specific stopy” in the composition of the main text that develops a mixture with a stoke, and there is no particular difference in the composition of the teaching materials.

Therefore, components 1, 4 can be easily derived from simple combination of corresponding composition of comparable invention 1 and the prior art.

(c) components 2, 3;

As the fingers of comparable invention 1 are enclosed with the mixed mar, the component 2 is responding to the composition of the urban area between the Myeonk and the Dok gate “hek,” and the component 3 is corresponding to the urban structure of the “rogate,” and these components are only different depending on the form of the relevant teaching material, and there is no particular difference in its composition. As such, components 2 and 3 can easily be derived from simple combination of the publicly known technology in comparison with components 1 and 4 in comparison with the corresponding structure of comparable invention 1.

On the other hand, the composition of a classical cartoon with an image representing the relevant Chinese characters and its Chinese characters in the cartoon image city is as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, and the composition of a classical cartoon together with a cartoon image 15, 22, 23 (the defendant is not a classic cartoon but a general cartoon, so these evidence is not a classic cartoon, so it is different from the art of the correction invention in this case. However, as seen above, the art of the correction invention in this case is a cartoon or an animation industry, and the art of the class is different depending on the type of cartoons. The art of the class of the cartoon in this case is not different. The composition of Korean language and its purport appears to have been expressed in the English language and its purport if it speaks in the English language, and the composition of a classical image that conforms with its meaning is easily combined with evidence Nos. 17 (A, No. 9, 10, 15, 222, and 3).

(iii)Effect;

The instant Claim 8 invention only has an expected level of effect according to the adoption of its components, and does not seem to have a qualitative or significant rise effect compared to the comparable invention 1 or the prior art.

(4) Sub-determination

Ultimately, the instant Claim 8 invention is identical to the cited invention 1 and the technical field and purpose, and its components can be easily derived from the cited inventions and the publicly known art, and there is no technical difficulty in combining the components, and its effect is generally anticipated. Therefore, non-obviousness is not recognized.

B. The corrective invention under Paragraph 9 of this case

The instant Claim 9 is a subordinate claim of the instant Claim 8, and added to the composition of the instant Claim 8 of the instant Claim 8, “a composition, including the Chinese characters appearing in the Chinese image image room before or after the implementation of the instant Claim 8, and the Chinese characters providing Chinese characters with information on sound, auxiliary, net, words containing Chinese characters, etc.”

The above additional composition corresponds to the “a person emitted from this book” before the beginning of the main text of the comparable invention 1 (the “a person suffering from this book” (the evidence No. 1-2, the fourth page) and the “a person suffering from the Roman method,” and the “a person suffering from multiple times” (the evidence No. 6-1, 160-161 page). The response composition is substantially identical to the additional composition of the corrected invention No. 9 of this case in that the additional composition of the instant Claim No. 9 is located in the front and rear of the main text in that the person providing information on the meaning, sound, number of copies, words containing Chinese characters, etc. mentioned in the main text is located in the front and rear of the main text. Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 9 is easily derived from the combination of the prior art No. 1 and the instant Claim No. 8 inventions.

On the other hand, the composition of the Chinese characters, which provide information about the Chinese characters, sound, auxiliary, and words containing a Chinese characters, etc. appearing in the main body, is a publicly known art launched in Gap Nos. 13 and 14 (the first day of the correction invention of this case). The additional composition of the correction invention of this case under Paragraph 9 of this case can be easily derived from the above publicly known art.

C. The corrective invention of this case No. 10

The Claim 10 of this case’s corrective invention is a subordinate claim of Claim 9 of this case’s corrective invention, and added to “the composition of Claim 9 of this case’s corrective invention “the composition of Claim 9 of this case’s correction invention, wherein a new 4 through 6 person appeared at the same time as animation, and where the specific stores are connected to the majority.”

The above additional composition is substantially identical to the composition of the majority convenience screen with the 10th studios connecting the 10th studios of comparable inventions 1 from the “1. Dived Invention 1” to the “10. too late,” (the evidence No. 1-2, 5th ) and the composition of the 160-161 unit to the 4th studios (the evidence No. 6-1, 160-161 page). As such, the instant Claim No. 10 invention can be easily derived from the combination of the prior art No. 1 and the instant Claim No. 8 invention in determining the inventive step, and its inventive step is not recognized.

On the other hand, the composition of a cartoon consisting of two to three persons and multiple convenience scenarios is an known art respectively commenced in Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 12 (the first day of the correction invention of this case). The additional composition of the correction invention of this case No. 10 of the correction invention of this case can easily be derived from the above known art.

D. The corrective invention of this case No. 11

The instant corrective invention is a subordinate claim of the instant corrective invention or paragraph (10) of the instant corrective invention, and is, in the composition of the said corrective invention, the “Korea-China Information Provision Book” was provided before and after the end of the instant video division. The Korea-China Information Provision Book, which was provided before the commencement of the instant video division, provides information to the one person appearing in the main video book of the transfer convenience, and the Chinese-China Information Provision Book, which was provided after the completion of the said video division, provides information to the one person appearing in the main video book of the video division immediately before the completion of the instant video division.”

As seen in the determination of the inventive step of the instant Claim No. 9, which states that the composition of each provision of Chinese information was initiated in the comparable invention 1 after the main text had been completed before and after the beginning of the beginning of the beginning of the period, and that it would normally be understood through the provision of Chinese information by linking one another’s own information with the one indicated in the main image book before and after the beginning of the instant Claim No. 9. The mere degree of application of the continuous form ordinarily committed to an animation oriental learning teaching material. The said additional composition is deemed to have been derived by an ordinary technician without any difficulty from the corresponding composition of the comparable invention 1. As such, the instant Claim No. 11 invention can be easily derived from the combination of publicly known technologies in the determination of inventive step of the instant Claim No. 1 and Claim No. 8.

Meanwhile, as seen in the determination of the inventive step of the corrective invention under Paragraph (9) of this case, the composition that provides the original provision of Chinese information after the main provision of this case starts with the evidence Nos. 13 and 14. The addition composition of the corrective invention under Paragraph (11) of this case can easily be derived from the prior art launched in the evidence No. 13 and No. 14.

E. Correction invention of this case No. 12

The corrective invention of Paragraph 12 of this case is the subordinate claim of Paragraph 1 of this case, and added a single game card to the composition of the corrective invention of Paragraph 1 of this case.

The composition of the correction invention under Paragraph (1) of this case was publicly announced by the comparable invention 1 as seen in the determination of the newness of the correction invention under Paragraph (1) of this case, and the "Ma law consultation, Chinese-do Card Game Method" has commenced in the comparable invention 1, the front of the card to learn "each," which is the one related to the title of the book, to which the title of the book is “each,” and below, the statement to the effect that "No. the meaning and sound of the card is the one reported to the rear side of the card," is stated as follows (No. 1-2, No. 1-2, and no. 6hh).

In addition, among the supplementary composition of the corrective invention of this case, the number display book of the cartoon, ② the card number display book, ③ the card game method display book equipped with the attack/defense display book, ④ the card game display book equipped with the difficulty display book, ④ the card display book of the Chinese game method and Chinese information display book, ② the card number display book (12), ③ the card number display book (11), ③ the card number display book, ③ the card number display book (13), the degree of difficulty display (15), ④ the Chinese game method display book (17), and the Chinese game information display book (14) are applied to the composition of the corrective invention of this case, and only the cartoon indicating only the cartoon on the front part among the supplementary composition of the corrective invention of this case is indicated on the composition of the cartoon of comparable invention 4.

Therefore, the corrective invention of the instant Claim No. 12 is not recognized as non-obviousness, since it can be easily described by a simple combination between the comparable invention No. 1 and the comparable invention No. 4.

On the other hand, as seen in the determination of the inventive step of the corrective invention of Paragraph 8 of this case, the corrective invention of Paragraph 1 of this case can also be easily derived from the publicly known art launched in the evidence Nos. 9, 10, 15, 17, 22, and 23 of this case. Thus, the corrective invention of Paragraph 12 of this case can easily be seen by the simple combination between these publicly known art and the comparable invention No. 4.

(f) Whether non-obviousness is recognized due to commercial success, etc.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the nonobviousness of the corrected invention of this case shall not be denied in light of the following: (a) by resolving the problems with which the previous injecting-type and the injecting-type Chinese teaching materials had been possessed; (b) by recording the sales logs up to 10,00 copies of the product; and (c) drawing commercial largerity; and

However, the circumstances, such as the commercial success of the product of a patented invention or the fact that there was no person who has been worked for a long time prior to the filing of the patent application, may refer to one material that recognizes the inventive step, but such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the recognition of inventive step. The determination of inventive step of a patented invention shall be based on the prior art based on the contents, i.e., the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention, and the determination of inventive step of the patented invention should first be based on whether an ordinary skilled person can easily make an invention based on the prior art (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3052, May 29, 2008). Thus, the inventive step of the invention can not be recognized solely on the ground that there are such circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3052, May 29, 2008). As long as the corrective invention of this case is recognized that the ordinary skilled person can easily make

6. Conclusion

If so, the correction invention of this case is not new or non-obviousness and its registration is null and void without any further determination as to the remainder of the plaintiff's assertion. Since the remainder of the trial decision of this case except for the correction part is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the part is justified, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim on the correction of this case is for the correction invention of this case or the invalidation claim of the patented invention of this case, and the plaintiff's claim on the correction of this case accepted the plaintiff's claim that the correction invention of this case is null and void

Judges Noh Tae (Presiding Judge)