The case holding that the phrase "it may be put in with saws for smoking" in the phrase "be put in with saws for smoking" is not limited to the shape and structure of the goods, which is characterized by the characteristics of "be put in the bottom of the raw packaging box formed inside the raw packaging box, which is part of the scope of the claim for registration of the raw packaging box," which is a part of the scope of the claim for registration of the raw packaging box.

The case holding that in light of the interpretation of the phrase "shot for packaging", which is characterized by the fact that it may be inserted into the lower part of the raw packaging box, which is part of the scope of the registration request within the scope of the registration request, of the raw packaging box, which is a part of the raw packaging box, of the raw packaging box, which is composed of the raw packaging box inside the raw packaging box, it is clear that the phrase "shot for smoking-proof" is not an essential element but an optional element that can be selectively filled and may not be filled in as required, and it is clear that it is an arbitrary element that can not be filled." Thus, the phrase "it may be put into a saw for smoking-proof" among the above claims is not a limitation on the shape and structure of the goods, but merely an additional explanation of the method of use or purpose of use of the raw packaging box, which is the goods within the above registered area.

Article 9 (4) of the Utility Model Act

More (Attorney Kang Hong-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Heundong (Patent Attorney Cho Young-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 22, 2005

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 18, 2004 on the case No. 2003Da408 shall be revoked;

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence : Evidence No. 1 to 8]

A. The registered complaint of this case

The defendant's registered device of this case (registration No. 213296, Sep. 19, 200, Nov. 30, 200) concerns "bails for packaging", and the scope of the defendant's application for registration and drawings are as shown in attached Table 1.

B. Compared Gossis

(1) Comparison 1

The Utility Model Gazette (Public Notice Number 20-165935, No. 165935) published on February 15, 2000 is related to the "blox" of packing paper boxes, which is marked in the Utility Model Gazette (Public Notice Number 20-165935, No. 14). There is a shape of a paper box for packing in order to prevent damage to the contents contained in a box by dividing several converging several side walls and these side walls into the surface of the original paper in which the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the joints of the boxes and by forming a box in such a way as to cover several side walls and these side walls together and supporting each side wall. The drawings are as shown in the attached Table 2.

(2) Comparison 2

With respect to "containers for packaging" published in the Japanese Patent Gazette (No. 7-52986, No. 55) dated February 28, 1995, the upper part of the upper part of the front part of the container (2) and the main part of the container (2) shall be made up of a string (3), the container shall be installed in response to both sides of the width direction (5) and the front part (6) installed in response to both sides of the vessel and the length direction. The upper part of the front and rear side shall stick out to make it possible to move upper and lower part of the upper part of the container, the upper part of one unit of the vessel shall be 10,000 and the upper part of the vessel (6) shall be 10,000,000,000 117,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

(3) Comparison 3

The issue of "electronic and electronic equipment packing boxes" published in the Utility Model Gazette (No. 88-4517, No. 16) dated May 10, 198. The issue of the branch packing box (1) is that both sides of the branch packing box (2.2') and the inner walls (3.3'') are combined, the two sides of the front (4'), the two sides of the side (5.5'), the lid (6.6') of the two sides (6'), and the two sides of the two sides (6.6'), the front cover (9) are added to the upper part (10.10') and the inner part (3.3'') are added to the upper part (2.2'), so that both sides (10.10'') are inserted into the upper part (2.2') and the inner part (3.3''') are inserted into the upper part, and the drawings of electronic and electronic equipment are divided into two parts.

(4) Comparison 4

On October 28, 198, the Utility Model Gazette (No. 88-18439, No. 7) and the KIKO boxes published in that application (No. 88-18439, No. 87) are linked to the "click box". Undermining (1) and connected with upper (4, 5) and upper (3) and cover (2) are linked with upper (3) and upper (4, and cover (2) are linked with upper (6) equipped with upper (6-1), and upper (2) are connected with upper (6). On both sides, the upper (1) form a flick (1-1), form an outer side board (7) and a flick (8-1), form an inner side board (8) and form an inner side board (3) flick (3) flick (1-1) separate from upper (3) flick (3) flick-1-1).

C. Details of the instant trial decision

The plaintiff filed a petition against the defendant for a registration invalidation trial against the defendant that the registration of this case should be invalidated on the grounds that there is no inventive step by the comparison design 1 and 2. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated this as No. 2003Da408, which dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on June 18, 2004.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

In comparison with the registered design of this case 1 and 2, both devices have common points for the purpose of providing boxes for the purpose of storing or transporting them so that they are not damaged when they are stored or transported. In the composition and effect of paragraph 1, the composition of the first side wall (10) composed of both sides of the device of this case 1 and the 20th end part of the lower side wall (20) composed of the 1st part of the device of this case (20b) inserted (62) into the inner side wall (60b), the composition of the 1st part of the 6th side wall of the 6th side wall (30%) composed of the 6th side wall of the 5th side wall (31) composed of the 6th side wall of the 6th side wall of this case, and the composition of the 1st side wall of this case composed of the 1st half wall of the 6th side wall (20th side wall) composed of the 1st side wall of this case and the 2nd side wall of this case (10th side wall) composed) composed of this case.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

Since the combinations (51) and inserted spaces (63) of the registered device of this case are identical respectively to the inner side wall (3.3') and the inner side wall (6-1') of the comparable device 3 gals (10,10') and the outer side wall (2.2''), the composition of the registered device of this case was published by the comparable device. Accordingly, the registered device of this case can be easily designed either by the combinations of the comparable device 1, 2 and the comparable device 3 or 4, or by the combinations of the comparable device 2 and 4, and thus, the decision of this case should be revoked illegally.

(b) Markets:

(1) As to the inventive step of Paragraph (1) of this case

With respect to whether the device of Paragraph 1 can be easily designed from 2 and 4 of the comparative device, in the field of technology and purpose of the technology, the device of Paragraph 1 of this case is related to the raw packaging box, so it is safe to ensure that the upper line does not work, and at the same time, it is possible to stably transport the upper line to vibration or shock, and to ensure long-term storage at the time of the transport and storage of the upper line, and to provide a high-class raw packaging box by saving, saving, reducing the volume of the raw packaging box, and packaging the upper line individually. The comparative device 2 is related to the raw packaging container, which can achieve stability compared to the raw packaging container directly transports with the main body, and reduce the packaging cost, and the comparative device 4 is to provide the same packaging box with the same packaging container, and it is difficult to see that the comparative device 2 of this case can be combined with a single packaging container that can be combined with the main body, and it can be combined with the new packaging container 4 of this case.

With respect to the composition and operational effects of the instant claim, if the composition of the device of the instant claim is divided into two parts by the scope of its registration request, it may be divided into two parts: (1) surface walls; (2) surface walls; (3) surface walls; (4) all paper boxes (ent components 1); (4) embles attached to the inner part; and (3) embles attached to the upper part of the front wall; (4) surface walls consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting of an inner part of the front wall consisting part of the front wall consisting.

First, the 1nd element of the device of this case is a paper box consisting of 1 lids and lids of boxes, which are completed in an overlap, corresponding to the packing box 4 of the comparable high-rises. (1) Of its detailed composition, the 1nd components are the same as that of the bridge support (11) with the 4th end section of the comparable high-rises (4). (2) The 1st two sides of the comparable high-rises (1-1) are composed of the 4th bottom of the comparable high-rises (4) and the 1st half of the comparable high-rises (8-1) are the same as that of the 6th half of the combined high-rises (1st) and the 1st half of the combined high-rises (4th of the compared high-rises), and the 1st half of the combined high-rises (6th of the combined upper-rises) are the same as the 1st half of the combined upper-rises (14th of the combined).

While the Defendant’s design of this case is related to the raw packaging box, the comparative design 4 is related to the KIKO package box, and since the comparative design 4 is a package box with clear use of both the two devices, it is not easy for a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to create the instant Claim No. 1 device from the comparative design 4. However, although the upper part of the two devices is different from the packing contents, and there is no difference in that both devices are the packing box for the stable storage of the packed goods, and even if examining the composition, the two devices are identical with all the remaining parts except that the two devices are added to the upper part (3) of the comparative design 4, as seen above. Furthermore, since the packaging of both devices are the same as the upper part of the packaging of the two devices, the producer is also identical. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no technical difficulty in developing the instant Claim No. 1 device from the comparative design 4.

The elements of paragraph (1) 2 of this case are vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable 13) vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable.

The elements of paragraph 1 of this case are attached to the growth line, and there is no limit on the scope of the application for registration with respect to its detailed composition. Thus, there is no corresponding composition with respect to the 2nd and 4th of the comparative device, but there is no corresponding composition with regard to the technical effect of the above composition. The specification of the registered device of this case does not state any particular description as to the technical effect of the above composition. In general, where an article is packed to a box, it is usually conducted in daily life and any person is an widely known and used technology that can be adopted without any particular difficulty. Thus, there is no particular technical difficulty in devising the above component 3.

Therefore, each composition of the instant Claim No. 1 device cannot be deemed as having any particular technical difficulty even in cases where both the comparative device Nos. 2 and 4 were initiated, or where it is merely an widely known and used technology and combining it. Thus, the instant Claim Nos. 1 device can be easily designed by combining the comparative device Nos. 2 and 4 with the widely known and used art.

(2) As to the inventive step of the instant Claim 2

2) Paragraph 2 of this case is a dependent device of this case 2 of this case which is more specifically limited than that of the base of the base of the 2nd vessel (the base of the 10th vessel) before and after the 10th vessel (the base of the 2nd vessel). As the base of the 2nd vessel (the base of the 2nd vessel) before and after the 10th vessel (the base of the 10th vessel), the base of the 2nd vessel (the base of the 10th vessel) before and after the 10th vessel (the base of the 10th vessel), the base of the 2nd vessel (the base of the 2nd vessel) shall be 10th vessel (the base of the 2nd vessel) before and after the 10th vessel (the base of the 2nd vessel). The upper vessel shall be 10th vessel (the base of the 2nd vessel) with the 1st vessel's base of the 2nd vessel (the base of the 3th vessel).

Therefore, the second device of this case can be easily designed by combining the prior art 2 and 4 with the prior art 2 and 4.

(3) As to the inventive step of the instant Claim 3 device

The scope of the claim for the registration of the instant claim 3 device is, in paragraph 1, "a fresh packaging box with the characteristic that it may be inserted into the lower part of the raw packaging box, which is formed inside the raw packaging box." In light of the above text, it is clear that saws for smoking-proof purposes can be inserted selectively as necessary, rather than the essential elements to be filled, and it is an arbitrary element that may not be filled. Thus, the above "it may be put into the upper part of the raw packaging box, which is the goods of the instant claim 3 device, without limiting the shape and structure of the goods, and it is nothing more than the phrases that additionally explain the method of use or purpose of use of the raw packaging box, which is the goods of the instant claim 3, to the extent that the instant claim 3 device of this case can be added to the upper part of the outer packaging box, without being added to the outer part of the instant claim 1.

Thus, the comparative Goan 2 shows that a certain vacant space has been formed based on the pre-post table (5) and post-post table (6) installed in a vertical line at the bottom of the 'brupt 9), the upper part (2) upper part (13) of the upper part (13), the upper part (10), the upper part (10), the upper part of the upper part (12), and the upper part (5), and the upper part (6) which are set up in a vertical line to make it possible to move upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part (13) corresponding to the upper part of the instant Claim 1 device of this case. Thus, the above added composition of the instant Claim 3 of this case also appears in the comparative Goan 2.

Therefore, the instant Claim 3 design can be easily designed by combining the prior art 2 and 4 with the prior art 2 and 4.

(4) Ultimately, the registered device of this case is not to be non-obviousness since it can be easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field from the comparative art 2, 4, and widely known art, and thus its registration should be invalidated. Accordingly, the decision of this case, which different conclusions, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)