The case holding that the registered device on “A” has newness and non-obviousness as to the cited proposal

The case holding that since all devices must be identified on the basis of the claims and the scope of their rights, unless there exist such exceptional circumstances as that the claims are not supported by the detailed description of the invention, the claims cannot be interpreted by disregarding that they are part of the essential elements of the device in the claims, and the claims in the registration petition petition concerning "A" include the openings formed in the protective device as essential elements together with the attachment of the rest triangs and protectiveer using concluded pin, and it can be known by detailed description that the claims have the effect of action so that consumers can easily observe the surrounding areas of each set lease and make their selection more accurate, it cannot be deemed that the registered device was implemented domestically, and the registration petition cannot be deemed to have been implemented publicly prior to its application due to differences between the cited draft, the composition and the action effect, and thus, a person with extremely ordinary knowledge in the above ordinary technology cannot easily cite the device due to the lack of essential elements of the device.

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

Aart Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys After Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

B (Patent Attorney Han-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 30, 200 on the case No. 99Da2389 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

Evidence: Each description of evidence of Category A, 3, and 4.

(a) Details of the registration and trial decision;

(1) The Defendant is the right holder of the instant registered complaint (registration number C, D utility model application/E) indicated in Appendix 1, the name of which is “A.”

(2) The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of a utility model registration with the Defendant as the respondent, to the effect that the registration of the instant registered petition may be easily created from a device described in the art worked publicly prior to the filing of the petition or a publication published publicly, and thus the registration should be invalidated. The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the instant petition as 99Da2389 and dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial on November 30, 200 as follows.

B. Summary of the instant motion for registration

The purpose of the instant registered device is to provide a brupt protectioner with a brush lease, which can be easily attached to the mother register of the brupte rental, is to observe the mother register of the brupte and the mother register of the brupte from outside, and its constituent summary is as follows.

“1. Each protection benefit (2.3 ', '3') formed in a upper part of the protective outfit (2.3 ') shall be composed of a triarche in each protection benefit (2', '2' and '3'). However, the above protection benefit consists of a tricte (10) with the size prescribed in the protective outfit (2.3) in which the protection benefit (2', '3') consists of two tricts (4, '4') between the protective benefit (2', '2' and '2', '2' and '3') consisting of two tricts (2, 3) with the characteristics that multiple duines (6 '6') are put into a tricte (1) design in each case (hereinafter referred to as the "design in each case").

2. In paragraph 1, the shape of the opening (10) is in its original form or multiple forms, and the number of the openings (10) above is one or more characteristics of the openings (10) and the protection knurier of a tring lease with a feature of the number of the said openings (10)(hereinafter referred to as the “paragraph 2 of this case”).

C. Summary of the decision of this case

(1) (A) The fact of importing part of the sediment process with the name of Thai gun, Thaibin or Thaifin in Eslock Co., Ltd. is recognized, but their shape or use is not known at all, and there is no ground that it is identical to the shape or use of the instant registered device, and (b) the coper protection unit of Eslock Slock Co., Ltd. is formed only one part of several needs, and its form, use, and conclusion means are different. Thus, the instant registered device cannot be deemed as a publicly known technology prior to its application.

(2) Both the instant Claim 1 design and the instant Claim 3 cited on the following are related to a protectioner with a view to protecting the brusium. However, since the cited Claim 3 is an existing technology indicated in the detailed description of the instant registered device, which was designed to solve the problem, the two devices are different from each other, and their two devices are different in terms of their purpose and the structure such as the number and the means of conclusion, etc. to realize the two devices, and their effects are different.

(3) The instant Claim 2 device is subordinate to the instant Claim 1 device, so long as the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 device is recognized, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 also exists.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Whether the registered design of this case is new

(1) Grounds for revoking the decision of the plaintiff's assertion

The technologies consisting of two parts (4, 4) between the benefits from the protection of the registered device of this case (2 '2' and '3') and the technologies consisting of several parts (6 '6') through a twit gun into each unit (4, 3) were publicly implemented domestically prior to the filing of the application for the instant registered device. The openings (10) formed in the protective device (2, 3) in the instant registered device of this case were added to the purpose of the avoidance design, and thus, the instant registered device of this case was publicly implemented domestically prior to the filing of the application.

(2) Determination:

(A) Summary of the technology of the cited designs

(1) A quoted petition 1

[o] 16, 22 evidence 1 to 9, 18, 23 evidence 1 to 3, 19-2 to 4 respectively, witness F, and G testimony

The cited design 1 is a technology related to Escop scopies manufactured by the Plaintiff in around 1993 and sold to I living in H apartment in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and to Escop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop scop sphers, which were sold to F at the Seoul Samsung East International Trade Center's department on March 4, 1996.

(2) citement proposal 2

[o] Each entry of Gap evidence 26 No. 26-1 to 3

The cited proposal 2 is a technology related to Jinyang Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Timber Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was conducted from around the date before August 23, 1995. The summary of this is as follows: “The protection string of the string lease constitutes the protection string of the string of the string lease, and the protection string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the 2nd.

(B) Preparation for the instant Claim 1’s design and the cited petition

The first device of this case is composed of ① the opening (10) with the size prescribed in the protective outfit (2 and 3), ② each protection benefit (2'2', 3'4'), ③ multiple fin(6'), i.e., one 'one 'one 'one 'one 'one 'fin', through the solar gun', and the second device of this case is composed of ① the opening part (10) with the size prescribed in the protective outfit (2 and 3). The first device of this case is composed of two - one - one - one 'one 'one 'one ' one', and two - one - one 'one 'one 'one ' one ' two - one ',' and the second - one - two - one - the two - one - one - one -

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant Claim 1 device should be deemed to have been publicly announced by the quoted height with all remaining parts, excluding such outlines (10), since the outlines of the instant Claim 1 device (10) cannot bring any technical effect, and is only added for the purpose of the avoidance design.

Inasmuch as all devices must be specified on the basis of the claims and the scope of their rights, barring any exceptional circumstance, such as that the claims shall not be supported by the detailed description of the invention, the claims cannot be interpreted by disregarding the description of the essential elements of the device and disregarding the description of the claims as part of the essential elements of the device. The claim 1 invention of this case contains the following two parts: ① the outlines formed in the protective outfit (10) are included in the attachment of the two parts, i.e., the remainder (4, 4) and iii concluded pin (6), together with the attachment of the protective knicker using the two parts (4, 4) and the three parts (6), and this is known by a detailed description that the consumer has the effect of easily observing the areas surrounding the knite lease so that the invention of this case can be more accurate, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the design of this case was implemented domestically prior to the filing of the claim 1 of this case by citing the essential elements of the device.

(C) Preparation for the instant Claim 2 Devices and Claim 1 and Claim 2

The second device of this case is a subordinate claim in which the opening part (10) is in its original form or in multiple forms, and the number of opening parts (10) is limited to more than one (10). Since the first device of this case is new when compared with the 1 and 2 of the cited device, the second device of this case also has newness.

B. Whether the instant registered appeal is inventive step

(1) Grounds for revoking the decision of the plaintiff's assertion

The registered design of this case differs from the following cited design 3: (a) the use of solar pinin in lieu of conclusion pinin; (b) the use of solar pinin has two trine parts; (c) the use of solar pin is merely a substitution of tolerance means; (d) the use of solar pin is limited to two trine parts; (e) the technical difficulty is not recognized; and (e) the opening is merely an evasion design with no technical effect; and (e) the registration design of this case can easily be made by a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field from the cited design 3 to the cited design.

(2) Determination:

(A) The technical summary of the cited motion 3

The cited design 3 is a description in attached Form 3 of the Utility Model Gazette No. 94-4869 (Evidence No. 5 of the Utility Model Gazette publicly announced on July 2, 1994, and its summary is "the protection benefit (5) in each protection benefit (2, 3) above the upper part of the protective equipment (2, 2, 3) is formed, the protection benefit (2, 3) is formed, and the protection benefit (2, 2, 3) is formed, and the protection benefit (4), which is combined with the conclusion of the Pinland (6) in order to be fixed to the P in the Pin Lease."

(B) Preparation for the instant Claim 1’s design and the cited Claim 3

The device of Paragraph 1 of this case is composed of ① 1(2), 2(2), 3(3) of each protection benefit (2), 4(4) of each protection benefit (3) of this case, ③ multiple fins (6), i.e., one fins (6), i.e. one fins), 3 of which are attached to the protection benefit (2', 3'), 3 of which are composed of multiple fins (5) of which are attached to the protection benefit (2', 4'), 3 of which are attached to the protection benefit (2', 3'), 3 of which are attached to the protection benefit (2', 4'), 3 of which are attached to the protection benefit (5'), 3 of which are attached to the protection benefit (5'), 1 of this case, 4 of which are composed of 3 of the protection benefit (5'), 3 of the protection benefit (1) of this case, 4 of which are formed by the protection benefit (3) of the design of this case) of this case.

As seen earlier, the opening part of the Claim 1 device of this case (10) has the effect of allowing consumers to easily observe the areas surrounding the mat lease and make the selection of products more accurately. As such, the quoted Claim 3 cannot expect such effect as lack of opening parts.

Since the above difference is a health unit, the design of Paragraph 1 of this case is composed of two triangs (2 ', 3') in the protective benefit part (2', 4') and two triangs (4'), the range of each triangs (4'), which can be contacted by the protectiveer, the design of this case can be fully connected to each triangs (4). However, the triangs (4) in the quoted design 3 is formed only in one triangs (4) and the protectiveer is directly connected to each triangs (4), so there is a difference in the effect that it is difficult to be connected to each T

While the above difference is health stand, the design of Paragraph 1 of this case is attached to the protectioner's string, because the protectioner's string is very solid by the stringfin that the protectioner's string is attached to the protectioner's string string, the 3th of the accepted string 3 is attached to the protectioner's string strings by the conclusion pin, so the relationship between the protectioner's strings is not relatively solid.

Therefore, considering such differences in the composition and effect of action, the instant Claim 1 device cannot be easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art by citing the proposal 3, and thus, its inventive step is deemed to exist.

(C) Preparation for the instant Claim 2 Devices and Claim 3

The second device of this case is a subordinate claim in which the opening part (10) in the device of this case is in its original form or in multiple forms, and the number of opening parts (10) is limited to more than one unit. Since the first device of this case is non-obviousness when compared with the citing proposal 3, the second device of this case also has non-obviousness.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the registered petition of this case cannot be deemed to lack newness or inventive step prior to the filing of the petition, and the decision of this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)