[1] The meaning of "an advanced device" under the Utility Model Act

[2] The case holding that the non-obviousness can be denied on the ground that paragraph (1) of the registered claim(s) of the registered claim(s) which is the "bandon cutting device of a panel for household use" can be easily designed by combining the "dual 2 cutting device" and the "bandon cutting device consisting of the first cutting device and the second cutting device" as the previous technology publicly known in the specification of the registered claim(s) with the comparable device(s)

[1] Article 4 (2) of the Utility Model Act / [2] Article 4 (2) of the Utility Model Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Hu2080 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 676) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1787 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 395) Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2441 Delivered on February 23, 2006

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Dong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo866 Decided July 25, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the briefs, etc. submitted after the deadline for submission).

A device under the Utility Model Act does not require the altitude of creation, unlike an invention under the Patent Act, so if, even if a device is a combination of publicly known technologies, the device has a certain degree of industrial application due to the shape or structure of the product that is systematically combined with the device, or the similarity of the union, it may be a new industrial device. However, even in such a case, even if the device is a combination of publicly known technologies, it shall be deemed a new industrial device only when it is recognized that the more enhanced operational effects compared with each other before combinations are recognized, and that the device is not easily implemented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the device pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”). (See Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2441, Feb. 23, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the term “bandon cutting devices” consisting of one component of the claim(1) of the instant registered device(registration No. 37315) with the name “bandon cutting devices of the panel for household use” (registration No. 37315) (hereinafter “instant claim(s)” and one of the elements of the instant claim(s) as “the first cutting devices and the second cutting devices” are composed of previous technologies published in the specification of the instant registered device(s). Two components of the instant claim(s) are “1,2 bandon cutting devices” as well as “the first cutting devices and the second cutting devices consisting of the second cutting devices, which are composed of the first cutting devices and the second cutting devices, are easily identical to the second cutting devices, and the second cutting devices and the second cutting devices, which are composed of the two components of the instant claim(s) and the second cutting devices and the second cutting devices, which are composed of the two components of the instant device(s) and the second paragraph(s).

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the non-obviousness of the registered appeal of this case is denied is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of non-obviousness of a device, as otherwise

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.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)