Whether or not the cited device is new in the registered device whose technical composition and effects are different from the cited device, or whose technical composition and effects are identical.

If the registered device and the quoted device are identical in their technical composition and their action effects, even if their use, etc. are different, the registered device shall be considered to be easily designed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device pertains, and thus, it shall not be new.

Article 15 (2) of the Utility Model Act

claimant 1 and two others

Patent Attorney Han-han et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision (Law No. 102, Nov. 30, 1982) No. 102

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal by the respondent's agent are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the original decision in comparison with the records, the court below held that the registered device is identical to the technical composition and its action effect of the two, so even if the purpose of the application is different, the registered device constitutes an ex officio trial decision of Article 5 (2) of the Utility Model Gazette as it is justified in the holding that the registration of the design constitutes an ex officio decision of the court below since it is justified in the holding that the registration of the design constitutes an ex officio decision of Article 5 (2) of the Utility Model Gazette as it is based on the following reasons: (a) the outer part of the design in the Japanese Utility Model Gazette publicly announced on April 27, 1964 is related to the so-called ro-type painted 3) which is composed of the body's outer part (2) by forming the body (3) in the body (2) in the outer part of the body (2) and forming the body (4) in the body (3).

2. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below explained to the effect that the quoted bill listed in the evidence No. 3 was officially announced prior to the application for the registration of the instant case, but according to the records, it is difficult to regard the goods listed in the copy of the tax invoice issued by the company company No. 3 as the goods stated in the copy of the tax invoice issued by the company company No. 3 or the goods identical to the registered bill, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, and therefore, the original decision is erroneous in documentary evidence in this respect. However, as long as the original decision was just, the above unlawful judgment does not affect the result of the original decision. Thus, the argument is groundless.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)