The case holding that non-obviousness is recognized since a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device pertains could not easily have easily designed from the publication of a publication, on the grounds that the registered device, which is a 'bridgetic device', is different from the publication of the publication, its specific purpose is different in terms of composition and effects.

[1] Article 5 (1) and (2) of the Utility Model Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu113 Decided February 13, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 497) Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu45 Decided September 3, 2004

Kim Tae-su

MP Technology Industry (Patent Attorney Han Sung-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1484 decided May 1, 200

Patent Court Decision 2003Heo1031 delivered on January 30, 2004

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

1. The lower court determined to the following purport, in comparison with the instant registered device (registration No. 187688), the title of which is “new construction of a bridge” (registration No. 18768), the claim No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1 and 2”) and the device published in No. 1992-17407 of the Japanese Utility Model Gazette 1992-17407 (hereinafter “publication”).

A. The instant Claim 1 design and publication structure aim at preventing rainwater, etc. from breaking out due to the absence of a bridge. However, the instant Claim 1 design is designed to provide a new-use sound device that can prevent the infiltration of foreign water at the same time while smoothly carrying out the original new construction action of publication through the composition of “spambling absence”. Thus, the instant Claim 1 design and publication device of publication are inconsistent with the specific purpose of the instant Claim 1 design and publication.

B. The vertical absence and horizontal absence of the device of Paragraph 1 of this case are the same as the structure of a vertical absence and horizontal absence, which were commenced on the 4th map of the publication device of this case. However, the 1st device of this case is designed to provide a emulative space corresponding to the change of the distance between the upper side of the bridge and where the 's sealed absence' can be inserted. However, the emulative rubber, which was launched on the 4th map of the drawing of the publication device corresponding thereto, is not a new construction, or a structure that prevents water from flowing into the lower side of the bridge rather than a structure that provides a emulation space, and even if the emulation of the 1st device of this case, the emulation or absence of the emulation of the 4th device of this case, is not merely an emulation of the emulation of the device of this case, the emulation or absence of the emulation of the emulation of the 1st device of this case.

C. The composition of the "spawal absence" of the device of Paragraph 1 of this case has an ornamental shape while the structure of the "spawal absence" of the "spawal absence" of the device of this case, which was launched on the fourth map of the drawing of the publication, has a flat shape, and the structure of the "spawal absence" of the "spawal absence" has a difference in its shape, and due to these shapes, the above "spawal absence" can be reduced or increased only in the central space when the distance of the bridge board changes, and the above "spawal absence" of the "spawal absence" of the "spawal absence" in addition to the original new construction action, has an effect of preventing the collision between the rubber absence of sealed seal and the vertical and horizontal absence and preventing the intrusion of the material inside the spawal zone. However, since the distance of the bridge board changes, the above "spawal absence absence" of the bridge board can be repeated and spawnified with the upper part.

D. Therefore, the instant Claim No. 1 device and the instant Claim No. 2, which are subordinate claims citing it, are recognized as non-obviousness as it is extremely difficult for a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to whom the device pertains, to easily make a device from publication of another publication.

2. In light of the records, the device of Paragraph 1 of this case differs from the publication device of this case and its specific purpose, and each composition of the "retics" and "stewings" of Paragraph 1 of this case is different from the index (indics) where the complete part of the publication device was formed or the "stephym seal absence" listed in Section 4 of the drawing of the publication is different from the composition and effects of the "stephish" and "stephy seal absence", so the device of Paragraph 1 of this case and paragraph 2 of this case, which are subordinate to the design of this case and paragraph 1 of this case, shall be deemed to be non-obviousness in the device. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventiveness of the device, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as claimed in the grounds of appeal in the registered design bulletin of June 15, 199.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)