207Heo13865 Nullification of Registration (specific)

nan

nan

Patent Attorney Park Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

November 19, 2008

December 17, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 30, 2007 on the case No. 2007Da480 on November 30, 2007 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

(a) Details of the trial decision;

On February 27, 2007, the defendant filed a petition against the plaintiff for a invalidation trial on the patented invention of this case as stated below with the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

After examining the above case as 207Da480, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial ruling of this case on November 30, 2007 which cited the above case on the ground that the above case is legitimate by an interested party who has the interest in the request for a trial, and the patented invention of this case is denied by comparable invention 1 as shown in attached Table 2.

B. Patent of this case

(1) Date of application / Date of registration / Patent number: The method of inputting a secret number into a secret key which has the function of preventing the divulgence of a secret number.

(3) patentee: plaintiff

(4) The scope of a claim and drawings (the drawings are as shown in Appendix 1) shall proceed with the following programs on the software when it is recognized as the code on which the code signal to be entered in the microprocition (21) and microprocition (21) is installed to read the code-in signal in the key (11) composed of a majority of characters, numbers, etc., and (21) and key (11) and the code-in signal to be read, or the code-in signal to be entered in the microprocition (21) shall proceed with the following programs on the software when it is recognized as the code-in sign, or the code-in signal to be installed mechanically to impair the locking condition due to leakage of lock-in key (31). If the code-in signal is a combination number established in advance, it shall be deemed that the code-in signal is ordinarily valid and shall be operated in the first place (11) the code-in code-in number or 31) the code-in signal to be input.

[Ground of recognition] No. 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 22. Issues

A. Whether the request for the trial decision of this case is unlawful since it was made by the defendant, not a legitimate interested person

B. Whether the patented invention of this case is not patentable because it has no inventive step compared with the comparable inventions described in the attached Table 2

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a request for a trial

【Summary of Plaintiff’s argument】

Since the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to grant a non-exclusive license to the patented invention of this case, and notified the Defendant that he would not exercise the patent right to the patented invention of this case, the Defendant cannot be deemed a legitimate interested party to file the instant petition, and accordingly, the instant petition for a trial is unlawful.

[Judgment]

An interested person who is entitled to file a petition for a trial for invalidation of registration under Article 133(1) of the Patent Act means a person who conducts the business of manufacturing and selling goods by executing the patent invention, or a person who can be inferred to use the patent invention in light of the nature of his business, and an interested person includes a person who is likely to suffer loss or damage to business at present due to the concern that the patent owner might have asserted against the patent owner (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu46 delivered on July 7, 1987).

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 8-1 through 6, the defendant is presumed to use the patented invention in the future, since prior to the petition for a trial in this case, the defendant engaged in the manufacturing of an electronic scambling device belonging to the same technical field as the patented invention in this case, and the plaintiff had legal dispute over the patent in this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. However, the fact that the plaintiff, the patentee of the patented invention in this case, expressed his intent to grant a non-exclusive license and not to exercise a right to the patented invention in this case, cannot be said to have any possibility of defense against the plaintiff against the patent right in the future. Thus, the defendant constitutes a person who is likely to suffer occupational damage or damage after the plaintiff, the patent right holder.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case is lawful as it is by legitimate interested parties.

4. Whether the patented invention of this case is inventive

(a)to prepare for the technical field and purpose;

The patented invention of this case aims to provide a method of input of cryp that makes it impossible for a third party to know cryp if it complies with the cryp input process by preventing a third party from recognizing the key input prior to the entry of a number or text, such as a bank cash withdrawal machine, credit cooperative opening and closing device, and password for operating a computer, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Cyp") and to provide a method of protecting cryp in which it is impossible for the other party to know cryp if it enters the cryp to check whether the user using the system is a person with legitimate qualifications when it enters the cryp to check whether the cryp is a person with legitimate qualifications.

Therefore, both inventions are consistent with the purpose and effect of making it impossible for a third party to know the input key even if it comes to the input process of the cryp, in that they are the technology of the cryp (or the cryp).

B. Composition Preparation (1) ① Composition: (1) Composition 1 is the case where it is recognized that the code signal to be entered in Microcos (21) and Microcos (21) which reads the input signal of knife (11) and microcos (21) is installed, the following program is proceeding on the software, or mechanically, if the code signal to be entered in the microcos (31) is composed of an ordinary code signal which damages lock (31) ; (1) Composition 1 is the case where each letter data entered in the knife (10) knife (10) knife (16) knife (16) knife (16) knife (16) knife two) knife (16) knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife) k.

The two compositions shall be compared with the cancer in which the key was set up, and, if the input and the initial code coincides with each other, the cancellation, etc. of an ordinary locking device.

Since functions and effects of subsequent procedures are identical in terms of realizing the aforementioned functions and effects, (1) composition is carried out in microfics (21) whereas comparable invention 1 differs in terms of expressions carried out by hardware partnerships (16,18), 1, and 2 comparisons (19,20). However, composition (1) microfics in microfics (i) the comparison and implementation of an order to perform functions with microfics in advance stored in a key and an ordinary method of interpreting and implementing the order to perform subsequent works, and (ii) whether such works are to be carried out or are to be carried out in terms of hardware shall be deemed to be carried out by a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology (hereinafter referred to as an “ordinary engineer”) and, as a matter of course, it shall not be deemed that there is a legitimate technical composition of the pre-ficiated or non-ficient machine format with an automatic method of installation, such as (i) the number or non-ficibibibrication of the device.

( 3 ) 구성 ③ 구성 ③은 ‘ 상기 키입력부의 키 ( 11 ) 입력신호가 기설정된 조합된 암호키 앞 또는 뒤에 임의의 키가 입력되더라도 이를 정당한 암호키 입력으로 간주하여 소프트웨어 상으로는 다음 프로그램을 진행시키며, 기계적으로는 잠금장치 등을 해정토록 하는 구성 ’ 인데 , 이는 비교대상발명 1에 나타난 ‘ P개 ( P > 2 ) 의 문자열로 이루어진 패스워드에 대하여 최초의 Q ( 1≤Q≤P - 1 ) 문자를 그 패스워드의 식별문자로 하고, 남은 패스워드를 패스워드 잔부로 하여 패스워드를 입력할 때에는 패스워드에 임의의 개수의 문자열을 부가하여 입력하며, 패스워드를 검출할 때에는 식별문자가 검출되었을 때에 식별문자와 패스워드 잔부에 대응하는 입력문자에 대하여 패스워드의 검출을 수행하고, 이것 이외의 입력문자 ( 패스워드의 전부 또는 후부, 또는 전부 및 후부에 부가되는 문자 ) 는 패스워드 검출을 수행할 때에 무시하도록 하는 구성 ’ 및 ‘ 전부 부가워드 ( FAW ) 와 후부 부가워드 ( BAW ) 는 그 문자 개수를 임의로 하고, 또한 그 중의 문자배열도 임의로 하는 구성 ’ 에 대응된다 .

③ The composition and comparable invention 1 are all identical in that even if a key input signal consisting of numbers or letters, other than the above key, is entered in front of or subsequent to the key which was set up, it shall be deemed to be a legitimate key input and shall be deemed to be a lawful one and shall be carried out subsequent procedures. 3. The composition is written as follows: (a) voluntary key is also deemed to be a legitimate key input; (b) On the other hand, for example, Q = 1, for instance, is deemed to be a normal package input input in order not to include the first word of the package which was set up with the whole word in case of one.

On the other hand, examining the above difference, the specification of the patented invention of this case, "If it is deemed that the third party enters the secret number 6, 7, 8, 9, which has established the key force of the secret number 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6, 4, 2, 1, or 4, such as this invention, before and after the secret number 6, 7, 8, 9, or even if it is later entered, it is impossible to reduce the correct password even if it takes the key course.

In other words, "(A) to protect the passwords" (23 2, 29 to 32) is written as follows: "If the existing passwords are 1, 2, 3, and 4, it shall be used as the previous match 1, 2, 3, and 4 if it is desired to use it as the previous one, and if it is desired to be protected, 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be operated in any way other than the first number 1, and if it is intended to be protected, 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be written as "(A evidence 23, 32, and 34, if it is operated in any way other than the above one)" (A evidence 23, 232, and 1) is written as "a secret number" if it is not consistent with the following pages of the passwords in the invention of this case, it shall be deemed that the first type of a program is not carried out in any way different from the above description.

However, the specification of the comparable invention 1 states "where the same distinctive character as the first word is detected by the comparison machine (19) but the output is not obtained in conformity with the remaining part of the No. 2 (20)" (212 pages No. 3, below 212 pages No. 13). In the invention of this case, it is difficult to identify that "the voluntary key prior to the previously installed secret key is not the same as the first one of the secret key," and it is difficult to find that the first word of the cited invention of this case should be re-established from the beginning without any need to cancel the previous process, and it is difficult to find that the first word of the No. 1 is re-established by the comparison machine No. 3, the first word of the cited invention of this case can be re-established without any need to re-enter it from the beginning, and it is possible to detect the same word as the first one of the secret number No. 31 to No. 4.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, although the identification method of the instant patent invention is recognized as a block unit, the comparable invention 1 is composed of identification and slicking (the identification person + the paring tamping mar) by the identification person, the two inventions are entirely separate from the identification method. However, the paring in the comparable invention 1 is made by the identification person and the paring mar (the remainder of the paring mard (excluding the identification person) with the identification person, and in the comparison period 1 (19) with the first letter, the identification person who is the first letter of the paring mar in the comparison period (20) is deemed to be the input of the paring mar in the event of the output by the unanimous consent of all of the two comparison periods, and in the patented invention of this case, the initial number of the paring mark is different, and thus, the remaining method of the paring marring is different.

shall not be subject to an appeal.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the patent invention in this case is treated with normal operation, not errors, because it is treated with hump water by the hump processing department (fump identification), while the patent invention in this case is treated with hump as a hump type, but the two inventions are different. However, in the patent invention in this case, there is no specific indication as to the block base identification type or hump processing unit, and as seen earlier, the patent invention in this case has the same distinctive character as the first word of the hump, which was installed in the hump (PAW) added to the cited invention 1, but it is found that there is no difference in the two inventions in this respect, because the first word of the hump, which was detected in the whole addition to the cited invention 1, but is found to have the same characteristics as the original word of the hump, can be recognized only with the input of the correct hump.

C. The instant patent invention, as a result of comparison, has the same technical field as the cited invention 1 and the technical field are common to the same and intended purpose. The elements are substantially identical to the professional engineer’s shop included in the response elements of the comparable invention 1, or can easily be derived by a person with ordinary skills. The effects associated with the combination are within the scope that ordinary technicians can have sufficiently predicted.

Therefore, the patented invention in this case constitutes an invention that can easily be made by comparable invention 1, published in a publication published prior to the filing of the application by a person with ordinary skills, and thus, it does not have inventive step.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the patent invention of this case should be invalidated, and the trial decision of this case is legitimate as it concludes with this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is unfair and dismissed.

The presiding judge Kim Jong-soo

Judges Oh Jin-jin

Judges Green Min-seop

Attached 1. Drawings of the instant patent invention

Do 1

Do2

A person shall be appointed.

Do 3

Do 4

A person shall be appointed.

-Finally -

Attached 2. Invention 2.

1. Invention 1 (No. 3 Evidence, August 14, 1986, Japan Patent Gazette No. 61 - No. 182168)

(a) Main contents;

Entering a failure without any change in the composition of the failure failure currently being used, and without entering the failure;

(2) provide a method of protecting a failure to be exposed to the failure, even if the failure is not exposed to the failure in view of the face.

기 위한 것으로서, ‘ P개 ( P22 ) 의 문자열로 이루어진 패스워드에 대하여 최초의 Q ( 1≤Q

≤P - 1 ) 문자를 그 패스워드의 식별문자로 하고, 남은 패스워드를 패스워드 잔부로 하여

When a plaque is entered, it shall be entered in addition to the word heat of the number of voluntary number of the plaques, and the plaques

When detection of scopics is detected, scopic letters and scopic residuess at the time of detection of distinctive letters.

The detection of a plaque on the input text, and other input letters than this, shall be sealed.

(1) If the detection of a dicide is conducted, it shall be disregarded, which, in this context, shall be added to the above dicide.

be added to all or any subsequent parts, or all or any subsequent parts, and at least to all or any subsequent parts;

“Method of the par value protection, with a feature that does not include the par value among the lives,”

technology composition is known to the public.

(b) Main drawings;

Do1 (A) (B)

PPW

- - FAW———— PW - BAw——————

(a) 68293 148 3 216941587

(b) 51413 - 16 67148 11 32 194e3 - 8- 76,

(c) 3481 56: 2 17 14 314 9 March 9, 1483

A person shall be appointed.

(6)

Mate :

Pool

g

Do 2

2. Cited Invention 2 (No. 1 Certificate, Patent Gazette No. 1998- 54053, September 25, 1998)

By entering a key of a prescribed number of places in which voluntary water and a failure are mixed, theft risk and driver;

Hyless (Keylessless) a method of improving the vehicle, which can prevent the failure failure angle of the vehicle;

(110) entry of a key into a key through a keyboard (110) to close or close the vehicle’s length for official use.

Key (Keyless) In the method of raising the vehicle, the voluntary number of persons with established jobs and set up.

The Association shall use the cryp set up with a fry number to cover the cryp of the above vehicles by using the cryp.

하는 스텝과 ; 상기 키패드 ( 110 ) 를 통해 입력되는 키들 중에 조합스텝에서 조합된 키조

합에 따라 임의수와 패스워드를 구분하는 스텝 및 ; 상기 구분스텝을 통해 구분된 패스

If the Round and the Round set up above are the same, through the method of fishing gear (150), the Do of the above-mentioned vehicle

어를 개폐하는 스텝으로 이루어진 것을 특징으로 하는 키레스 ( Keyless ) 차량의 개선된

The technology composition of “satisfef method.” is publicly known.

-Finally -