A. Criteria for determining the inventive step of the patent application invention

(b) Criteria for determining the inventive step of an invention for patent application combining prior art for public use;

(c) The case holding that the patent application invention is an invention without non-obviousness, on the grounds that the patent application invention is merely a mere design change of the cited invention, which is a prior art, and it cannot be deemed that there is an increased effect in the action effect resulting therefrom, and the patent application invention is an invention with no non-obviousness.

A. Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990) purport of Article 6(2) of the same Act is that even if an invention claimed in a patent application is new technology that can be used for industrial purposes, if it is a creation that can be easily derived from the existing technology, it shall be deemed lacking inventive step and if it is not granted a patent. The degree of the difficulty in the creation that measure such inventive step should be determined by considering the difference in its technical composition and action effects, and the composition of the applied technology shall be different from the prior art, and the inventive step of the applied invention shall be recognized in light of the purpose of the patent system that seeks to promote the advancement and development of the technology, only if it is remarkably improved compared with the prior art.

(b) If the invention claimed in the application is a combination of prior art known to the public, it is recognized that there is a separate difficulty in integrating the prior art, or that there is a new rise effect beyond the expected effect from the prior art known to the public, and that there is no further recognition of the inventive step of the invention, unless it appears that a person with ordinary knowledge in that field could not easily make the invention by the prior art, or unless it appears that a new technical method is added.

C. The case holding that the patent application invention is an invention with no inventive step since the patent application invention is identical to the cited invention which is prior art, the technical composition, function, and operation effect of the cited invention, the applicable field, and the main part, and the patent application invention has been rapidly processed compared to the previous inputr, but it is not a new effect or more expected from the technology of the cited invention, but it is not a new one or more, but the location, etc. of the transporor for the trabing of the patent application invention and the corresponding quoted invention is merely a simple design change that can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field, and it cannot be deemed that there is no inventive step.

Article 6 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1284 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2723). Supreme Court Decision 90Hu601 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 483) 90Hu564 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong1991, 753). Supreme Court Decision 86Hu27 delivered on February 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 435) 88Hu516 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1235).

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office 89Na1253 decided Nov. 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The provisions of Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act purported to the effect that an invention for which a patent application has been filed is a new technology that can be used for industrial purposes, if it is a creation that can be easily derived from the existing technology, it shall be deemed to lack of inventive step, and thus, to grant a patent without granting the patent. The degree of the difficulty of the creation to measure the existence of inventive step should be determined by considering the difference in its technical composition and action effect, and if the composition of the applied technology is not different from the prior art, and if it is remarkably improved compared with the prior art in its action effect, it is reasonable to recognize the inventive step of the applied invention in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote and develop the inventive step (see Supreme Court Decision 90Hu564, Jan. 15, 191). If the action effect of the patent application is not remarkably inventive step compared with the action effect of the prior art, it shall be deemed to lack inventive step of the invention.

In addition, even if the invention claimed in the application is combined with the existing prior art for the public use, it is recognized that there is a separate difficulty in integrating the prior art, or that there is a new increase effect above the expected effect from the prior art for which the action effect is publicly known, and where a person with ordinary knowledge in that field is deemed unable to easily make an invention by the prior art, or where a new technical method is added, the inventive step of the invention should be recognized. However, if there is no separate difficulty in integrating the existing technology for the public use, or if there is no new increase effect beyond the expected effect from the prior art for which the prior art has already been publicly known, the inventive step of the invention shall not be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 88Hu769 delivered on Nov. 24, 1989).

2. According to the records, the original invention is composed of two different source equipment such as PEM using integrated circuits, and its main contents are connected to the voltage (VD) that is not connected to the input of new source equipment, and is not connected to the input voltage (20). The original invention is composed of new source equipment, and its new source equipment is not connected to the former source equipment (P.NOS) connected to the former source equipment (P.O.T.R.) connected to the latter and is not connected to the latter (P.O.T.) connected to the latter (P.R.) connected to the latter (P.M. equipment, and its new source equipment is not connected to the latter, and its new source equipment is not connected to the latter (V.T.) connected to the latter (V.M.) connected to the latter and thus, the new source equipment is not connected to the latter (V.T.) connected to the latter (V.M. 24) connected to the latter (P.M.M. equipment) connected to the latter (hereinafter referred to as the latter).

3. In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that the invention in question is an invention without non-obviousness, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to inventive step or incomplete hearing or omission of judgment.

In addition, even though the original trial decision erred by holding the franchise posters that connect the price to the input voltage (VIN) in common in the cited invention as the NMOS (NMOS), the original invention cannot be deemed unlawful since it is legitimate in determining that the inventive step cannot be recognized even if it is considered. The argument is groundless.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)