Plaintiff (Patent Firm Multilater, Patent Attorney Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Alphan J. Skylcom (Patent Attorney Kim Jung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 1, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part of the trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 19, 2004 regarding the case No. 121 and the part of the claims No. 166983 of the Patent Act shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. The defendant is a patentee of the patent No. 166983 [the patent invention of this case is referred to as "the patent of this case" on June 17, 1994 (the filing date of the first right claim) and September 25, 1998 (the filing date of the first right claim; October 15, 1993; hereinafter referred to as "the patent of this case"; the claims and drawings thereof are the same as shown in attached Table 1];

B. On January 22, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the patent on the ground that: (a) the prior clause of the claims of the instant patent invention (the two paragraphs) against the Defendant is unclear about its technical meaning; and (b) the combination between each constituent element and the description of claims is unclear; (c) the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the patent application on the ground that it does not meet the requirements set forth in Article 42(4) of the Patent Act; (d) the Defendant received a request for correction on April 18, 2002 and received a notice from the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the non-recognition of claims; and (d) submitted a correction statement, etc. on June 25, 2003, upon receipt of the notice of non-recognition of the second amendment, on January 24, 2004 from the Intellectual Property Tribunal; (e) the Intellectual Property Tribunal failed to meet some of the requirements set forth in Article 42(1) through (5) of the Patent Act, and thus, failed to obtain a correction or amendment of the claims.

C. Accordingly, while filing the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above dismissed part of the instant trial decision (a claim scope 6 to 18), the Plaintiff asserted as a ground for invalidation of registration in violation of the requirements for the description of the claims asserted at the trial stage as a ground for invalidation of registration. On the other hand, the Plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (Attached Invention 1 and 2) by asserting a new ground for invalidation of registration without non-obviousness as to the claims of the instant patent invention.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

A. Summary of the outline of the patented invention of this case

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4 and 5, the patented invention in this case is related to tray for accepting the integrated circuit parts. The development of storage tray corresponding to the invention was required at the stage of development from pin into other sp-in (hereinafter referred to as "BGA"). However, in the past, tray composed of basic reinforcements, which are linked to separate storage bubs-sphers-ins-ins-forms-ins-ins-forms-ins-forms-ins-ins-forms-ins-ins-outs-ins-outs-ins-outs-ins-outs-outs-ins-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs-outs.

B. Whether the patented invention of this case (paragraphs 6 through 18) satisfies the requirements stated in the claims

(1) Claim No. 6 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 6”)

(A) As seen in paragraph 6 of the claims of the instant patent invention, the elements (a), (b), and (c) of the instant Claim Nos. 6 are specified in the structural shape of each of the individual set before putting the first, second, and second set (10,10A), and the components (d) are concrete only when putting the first set (10), and the first set (10) and the second set (10A) are fixed at the top of the integrated circuit parts (11), and the third set at the top of the set at the top of the set at (10) and the top of the set at (10) in the vicinity of the set at (24) are the means for stabilizing the integrated circuit parts (24) with the focus of the set at first set at 1,2,100,100, and 10A.

(B) Although the Plaintiff is the person who is clearly identified the elements of the instant Claim No. 6 invention, the Plaintiff asserts that the elements of the instant Claim No. 6 invention violate the requirements for claims, i.e., Article 42(4) of the Patent Act, since it is an unclear composition that could not specify the substance of the invention, the elements of the instant Claim No. 6 are unclear. However, the Defendant has expressed the elements of claims in a functional way because it is likely to excessively limit the scope of claims, but there is no difficulty in specifying the technical meaning and substance.

(4) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each of the instant patent inventions: ① 10, 10A (10, 10A) mutually complementary structure [14 through 17] 1, 200, 84 (84, 93, 94] 400, 400 and 4000, 400 and 5000 and 50000 and 50000 and 500000 and 400000 and 44000,0000,00000 and 50000 and 4400.00 and 400.0.00 and 500,000,0000 and 40.00 and 400.0,000,000 and 440.0,000,000) are 1 and 50,000,000 and 44,00.

Based on this, the elements of the Claim 6 invention of this case expressed the technical composition that performs at the same time the two functions to stabilize the location of the integrated circuits parts by putting up the t (10) and 2 T (10A) on the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string and 2 Twits (11) adjacent to the 1string of the integrated circuits (24) on the string of the string of the 1string of the string of the string of the string of the 2nd in the storage string of the 2nd unit (24). In describing the characteristic structure of the 1st, 2ndra (10,10A) and the method of the press (24) on the patented invention of this case, it is understood that only the string of the string is limited to the elements of the 1, 2nd (d).

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the first and second trays corresponding to the elements of the Claim 6 (d) of this case are not clear in terms of the first function to fix the location of the integrated circuits parts and the second function to stabilize the location of the integrated circuits parts at the same time. However, as seen earlier, the elements of Claim 6 (d) of this case are limited to the technical composition based on the function that can only be realized after the string of the unspecified technical components in Section 6 (a), (b), and (c) of this case; (d) the elements of this case are not consistent with the direction-setting of the Plaintiff’s technological composition of each of the parts (24); (5) the structure that the Defendant is able to accept from each of the parts of this case’s technological composition of each of the parts (35,36,41,42); (5) the structure and the main structure of the instant Claim 6 (d) at the same time with the direction-setting of the Plaintiff’s technological extension of the parts (24) of this case’s specifications).

(2) Claims Nos. 7 through 18 (hereinafter “instant Claim Nos. 7 through 18”)

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant Claim Nos. 7 through 18, which directly or indirectly cited the instant Claim No. 6 invention that failed to meet the requirements for claims due to unclear description of the elements of the instant Claim No. 6 invention, violates the requirements for claims description. However, as seen in the instant Claim No. 6 invention, as long as it is deemed that the instant Claim No. 6 invention satisfies the requirements for claims description, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit without further review.

(3) Whether the correction is recognized

Despite the fact that the correction of the registered claims under paragraphs (6) through (18) of this case is "it is patentable at the time of filing a patent application" under Article 133-2 (3) of the Patent Act as applied mutatis mutandis under Article 133-2 (4) of the Patent Act, the plaintiff does not meet the requirements for the description of claims since the correction of claims under Paragraph (6) of this case, which is stated in the defendant's correction statement (Evidence No. 5) submitted on January 24, 2004, does not specify the substance of components (D). Since the subordinate inventions under paragraphs (7) through (18 of this case which are directly or indirectly cited in Paragraph (6) of this case, the correction of claims under paragraphs (6) through (18) of this case violates the requirements for claims, and thus, the correction of claims under Paragraph (6) through (18) of this case cannot be recognized, the plaintiff's correction of claims under paragraph (5) of this case's correction statement (Evidence No. 5) of this case's correction statement is not identical to paragraph 1 of this case's correction statement(6).

(4) Therefore, since claims 6 through 18 of the instant invention satisfy the requirements for claims, there is no ground for invalidation of the registration under Article 42(4) of the Patent Act, and on the same ground, correction of the instant invention on January 24, 2004 is lawful.

C. Whether the patented invention in this case is non-obviousness compared with comparable inventions

(1) Technical summary of comparable inventions

(A) Invention 1 (A No. 6)

The comparable invention 1 in the annexed Table 2(1) is published in the Japanese Utility Model Gazette (No. 2-90286, Jul. 17, 1990), which aims to accommodate and easily reflect semiconductor elements (sp. 10) installed with the line, which are used to accommodate and reflect semiconductor elements (sp. 10) installed with the line, and is used to accommodate semiconductor elements (sp. 10) installed with the line, and then is filled with the same line at the upper level in line with the upper part, at regular intervals of maintaining and maintaining the upper and lower parts of each properly story at intervals of time so as not to be inconsistent with each other in terms of water. If a panel (sp. 11 and 12) installed with the semiconductor elements in the condition of d.e., one story and upper part (sp. 13 and upper part) established with the outer upper part (sp. 14) and the first upper part (sp. 15th) of the outer part (sp. 15th).

(B) Invention 2 (A No. 7-2)

The comparable invention 2 as described in the annexed Table 2(2) is a design drawing for twits with the name of “8 x 20 M TSP 1. SHIPINGRAY (Drawing Approval, June 21, 1993)”, which was sold to Nonparty ASEAN on September 15, 1993 from the previous business enterprises operated by the Plaintiff, and the name of “8 x 20 M TSP 1. SHIPINGRAY (Drawing Approval, June 21, 1993). The twits identified from the above design drawing are divided into upper and lower twits so that twits can be able to be fit, and the short twits are divided into one support method (2) supporting one side of the semiconductor elements of semiconductors and one protruding part (4) covering two sides of the cited elements of semiconductors, and the two twits and two twits in the opposite direction of the two twits who are able to 2).

(2) Whether to recognize the inventive step of the instant Claim 6 invention

(A)Preparation for purposes

The purpose of the Claim 6 invention of this case is to provide a super-story system that can be reflected in a single or multilateral state in a situation where the part of the integrated circuit part of the PINP is maintained accurately. The purpose of the Claim 6 invention of this case is to determine the location of semiconductor elements (PINP) installed with the ride line and to provide a radar that can easily reflect it. The purpose of the Claim 1 of the Invention 1 is not specified specifically, but to provide a set that accommodates the part of the integrated circuit (TSOP) which is a kind of PIN input, although the purpose of the Claim 2 of this case is not specified, it can be deemed as similar to each other in terms of providing a half-way for storage of the integrated circuit part. However, the Claim 6 invention of this case is limited to BGA, while Invention 1 and 2 of the Invention 1 are to be seen as being subject to physical resolution of the invention of this case, and it can not be seen as being subject to No. 1 of the Claim 6 of this case's invention of this case.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no specificity between BG and PIN as it is included in BGA or PIN included in the “integrated circuit part” and the subject of expropriation is the same, while the Defendant asserts that there is no specificity for the purpose, although BG and PIN included in “integrated part” in the upper concept, they are different from each other, and they claim that they are entirely different form or structure from each other. Therefore, PIN included in the integrated circuit part (chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip) from the early stage where semiconductor technology is emerging, and it is difficult to clearly view that there is no difference between BG and PIN as the subject of expropriation and the new structure of the integrated part (PP), and that there is no difference between BG and the subject of expropriation in the form of the integrated part (PP, QFP, QFP), and HG from the point of view that there is no difference between BG and the subject of expropriation and the subject of expropriation in the form of the integrated part (PG).

(b) Preparation for technical composition;

1) Claim 6 of this case, as seen in paragraph 6 of the patent invention of this case, consists of "20 square meters" and "20 square meters" and "10 percent (10, 10A) of twit systems (hereinafter referred to as "Composition 1) containing 10, 10A (10) for storing a large number of BG integrated circuits parts (11) located on the prescribed pages of this letter 14 and this letter 200, as seen in paragraph 6 of the patent invention of this case, shall be composed of "24 means (24); 20 percent of the aforesaid means (10, 10A) for storing each integrated circuit part (11) and 25 percent (2) of the aforesaid means of storage (27) for stabilizing the integrated circuits part (11) above; 10 percent (56); 25 percent (15) of the means of storage within the respective territories;

2) In comparison with the cited Invention 1 and 2 with regard to each of the above components, the first composition of the instant Claim 6, first of all, is the structure corresponding to the tetraination of semiconductor elements as indicated in the Cited Invention 1 and 2. However, although the composition of the instant Claim 6 is limited to the storage of BGA integrated circuit parts, the composition of the instant Claim 1 is limited to the use of the BGA integrated circuit parts, whereas the comparable Invention 1 is specified for semiconductor elements, i.e., the PIN integrated circuit parts, and the comparable Invention 2 also states that the comparable Invention 2 is used as part of the PINA integrated circuit parts, a kind of PINT integrated circuit part. As seen in the foregoing Claim 1 and PINA, the structure of the instant Claim 6, insofar as it is acknowledged that the only person (BGA) is vulnerable to physical damage compared to the PIN others (PIN others).

3) Next, the composition of Claim 6 invention of this case consists of components (a), (b), (c) and (d) and each of these components is compared to the composition of Claim 1 and Section 6 invention of this case, first of all, the elements of Claim 6 invention of this case are similar in functional aspect to form the storage pocketet area as corresponding to the molds in the twits specified in the comparable Invention 1 and 2, and (b) components (c) and (c) respectively are the second support means to support one of the integrated circuit components (11) and the other side (13) and the second support means to support the other side (15) and the second support means to support the combined circuit parts (12) and the second support means to support the integrated circuit parts (2) and to support the same function as the upper and lower part (3) of the comparable invention of this case, but it is difficult to recognize the similarity between the two parts to be used directly for the same purpose as those of the comparable invention of this case, but it is difficult to recognize the similarity between the two parts to be used parts (2).

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, even though the comparable invention 1 is not suitable for being used for BGA, the means of support 1 (2) of the comparable invention 2 is identical in that it can be used for BGA through simple design change. However, the comparable invention 2 is premised on the acceptance of the integrated circuit parts of PIN in the integrated circuit, and it is clear that the composition of a Fin-in space cannot be omitted. According to the evidence No. 9, it is recognized that the standard of twit-in for integrated circuits generally complies with international standards. In light of this, it is difficult to view that changing the installation location of the above 1 support method (2) to be suitable for BGA by a person with ordinary knowledge in this technology is a matter of simple design change, and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that all the elements listed in the characteristic (main sentence) cannot be interpreted as limited to BGA only for BGA only on the ground that it was limited to BGA storage in the premise part of the instant Claim 6 invention. However, the interpretation of the claim cannot be separately interpreted on the premise that it was performed as a whole including the premise part, and the technical composition of the premise part. According to the specification of the instant patent invention, the Plaintiff pointed out the problems that it is easy for the seer of BGA to suffer physical damage than the pIN pIN pin part, and as long as it is recognized as having presented the composition of the instant Claim 6 invention as a solution, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be excluded. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

4) In comparison with the following components (d), there is no structure directly corresponding to the elements (d), i.e., the central extension (81) accompanied by pressle workshops (24) and the Lice Book (84) as a means to fix the parts to be expropriated by the enemy floor and to perform the function of stabilizing the horizontal direction location of their parts.

The Plaintiff asserts that the horizontal direction location of BGA parts expropriatedd in the cited Invention 2 may be stable by means of means of support Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, the Plaintiff appears to be able to limit the horizontal direction location of the expropriated parts by T-type No. 2 protruding (5). However, while the movement of the horizontal direction (the first direction) may be restricted by the part 1 protruding (4), in the case of the vertical direction (the second direction) in the case of the vertical length (the second direction), it is not possible to directly fix the inner direction of the integrated circuit parts due to the existence of a pin cross-cin space. Therefore, it is recognized that the location stability of BGA’s horizontal direction cannot be expected, and even in the case of the second rashing, it is difficult to regard the two parts of the expropriated parts which are expropriated in entirety as the same constituent element of the Invention No. 1, 2 support means and the instant Claim No. 6 (d) of this case.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the elements (d) of the Claim 6 invention of this case correspond to the reduction method (11,12) of comparable invention 1. However, in light of the detailed description (Evidence 6) of the Claim 1, the identification method of the comparable invention 1 is as follows: “When the size of the Claim 6 invention of this case was applied to the upper and lower parts of the Claim 1, 11, 11, 14, 15, 14, 15, 15, 14, 15, 15, 14, 15, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 8, 8, 11, 11, 12, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 10, 6, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10.

Meanwhile, according to the claims of the invention of this case, as long as the invention of this case is registered as the invention of this case, anyone, other than the right holder of the patented invention of this case, can not manufacture and sell all kinds of tray regardless of the failure of the integrated circuit part. However, the invention of this case specifically limits that the subject of expropriation is BGA, and the defendant clearly expresses that the substance of (d) is the central extension (82) and Lice (84) accompanied by the framework (24), the scope of protection shall be limited according to the scope of protection. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of this part cannot be accepted.

(c)Preparation for operational effects;

According to the composition of the Claim 6 invention of this case, it is effective to prevent physical damage from the aspect of location stability as well as physical damage (i.e., evidence 9-6 pages, 1, and 5) from the aspect of the part of the Claim 6 invention of this case by breaking up 1 and 2 bits, where the part of the integrated circuits (11) deemed by the first and second supporting means is above and above, with a prescribed space, and the location is fixed, and the central extension (81) accompanied by the presses (24) and ris (84) are completely enclosed with the wall formed, and where the part of the integrated circuits (13) can not be protruding out from the outer part of the cited invention of this case, while the part of the integrated circuits 1 can not be protruding out from the outer part (15) and the part of the combined inventions 2 cannot be seen as the part of the integrated circuits 1 to be protruding out from the outer part (13) of the semiconductor invention of this case.

(D) Therefore, the instant Claim 6 invention is distinguishable from the cited invention 1 and 2, and its purpose is different, and the complexity of composition and its rise effect are recognized. Thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 6 invention is more than that of the comparable invention 1 and 2.

(2) Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 7 to Claim 18 is recognized

Inasmuch as the invention in paragraphs 7 through 18 of this case is subordinate to the invention in paragraph 6 directly or indirectly, the nonobviousness of the invention in paragraph 6 of this case is recognized as long as the nonobviousness of the invention in paragraph 6 of this case is recognized, without any need to examine further.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant Claim Nos. 6 through 18 does not constitute a ground for invalidation of registration in violation of the requirements for claims stated in Article 42(4) of the Patent Act as asserted by the Plaintiff, and the correction made on January 24, 2004 is lawful, and the inventive step is also recognized compared to the comparable invention Nos. 1 and 2, and thus, the instant trial decision is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)