The case holding that the nonobviousness of the claim No. 7 of the patent application invention, which is "electric device, chip card programming process and its device", is denied since an ordinary technician can easily cite by the combination of comparable invention 1 and 2.

Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Central, Attorneys Lee Ho-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo7092 Decided May 4, 2007

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, Paragraph 7 of the claim scope of the invention of this case using the name "electric device, chip card programming process and its apparatus" (hereinafter "paragraph 7 invention of this case") is an additional description of "a typesetting chip card (11) of an electrical device, including "chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip 200,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)".

However, “Additional contact (12)” described in the claim(s) of the instant Claim(7) refers to only the inserted card to a criminal technical means for electrical contact with an external large-scale camera, not to have any particular technical meaning. If a person having ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”), as a matter of course, appears to be an attempt to connect the online large-scale camera with the instant Claim(s) card to the online large-scale camera(s) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, according to the need to overcome the shortage of the joint venture in transmitting the program by the instant Claim(s) card(s) to an electrical device, as a matter of course, according to the need to overcome the lack of the joint venture in the instant technology, a person would naturally have an external large-scale camera(s) camera(s) in connection with the instant Claim(7) invention(s) invention(s) invention(s) invention(s) in light of the size sufficient to solve the technical task of the instant Claim(s) invention(s) invention(s) invention(s)(7) invention(s) invention(s) invention(s).

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 7 invention can be deemed to be denied as it can be easily claimed by a person with ordinary skills by combining the inventions 1 and 2. However, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 7 invention has a feature of “chip card that can be combined with an external large capacity camera by additional contact” that is not commenced or proposed in the instant Claim No. 1 and 2, and its effect is not different from the cited Invention 1 and 2. In so doing, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 7 invention is not denied by contrasted Invention 1 and 2. In so doing, it is obvious that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step of an invention, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the allegation in the grounds

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)