[1] Standard for determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art documents

[2] The case holding that the elements under Paragraph (1) of the patent claim for correction of the patent invention whose name "to-small and medium electronic monitoring contact elements" is limited to the extent or easily derived from the combinations of comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3, and the effect under Paragraph (1) above cannot be deemed to have a rise effect exceeding the predicted outcome from the combinations of comparable inventions, and that the inventive step is denied since ordinary technicians can easily make inventions by combinations 1, 2, and 3 of comparable inventions 1, 2, and 3

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284 Decided September 6, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1582) Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu3377 Decided July 9, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1357)

Popacter, Ink (Law Firm AIP Patent Attorney Lee Full-time et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

A. Shaya Sha Microa (Patent Attorney Choi So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2008Heo9634 Decided April 16, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

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

In determining the inventive step of a patented invention by citing various prior art references, the inventive step of the patented invention in question shall be denied in cases where it is recognized that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter referred to as a "ordinary technician") can easily combine it in light of the level of technology at the time of the application of the patented invention in question, technical awareness, the basic task of the relevant technical field, development tendency, the demand of the relevant industry, etc., at the time of the application of the patented invention, are presented in the prior art literature, or the motive, etc. that the cited technology can be combined or combined with the relevant patented invention.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, in preparation for the patent invention of this case (patent No. 312872) with the patent claim No. 1 (patent No. 312872) and the patent invention No. 1,2, and 3 as indicated in the judgment below, the elements of the patent invention No. 1 of this case are limited to the extent that the elements of the patent invention No. 1 of this case appear or can be easily derived from the combinations of comparable invention No. 1, 2, and 3, and the effects of the patent invention No. 1 of this case cannot be deemed to have a new rise effect exceeding the predicted results from the combinations of the comparable invention No. 1, 2, and 3 of the patented invention of this case. The technical task of this case and the patent No. 1 of the cited invention No. 312872) are common in that it manufactures precise contact factors using chemical methods, and the combinations between the two inventions No. 1, 2, and 3 of the cited invention cannot be found to be denied by paragraph 1 of this case.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that denied the inventive step of the corrective invention under Paragraph (1) of this case is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as to the technical content of the comparable invention, misunderstanding of legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)