Azcoa Ltd.

Alternative Engineering Corporation, Inc.

August 25, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 30, 2004 on the case No. 2002Dang2859 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

(a) The patented invention of this case (the drawings are as shown in the attached Form);

(1) Name of invention: Electric iron machines, tft part melting devices.

(2) Date of application/priority claim (the date of priority claim)/registration date/registration number: July 7, 2001/ August 4, 2000 ( Russia)/ October 14, 2002/358407

(3) Claims (the last amendment made on September 11, 2002)

1.(a) At the location to decrease the location of the electric efts on the fixed date; (b) at the location to decrease the existence of snow between the efts and the fixed date;

c) the temperature to reduce the temperature of the line;

(d) any heat generated by an electrical device; and

e) The location information of the electric e.b. iron metal t.m. on the fixed date measured by the above location center, the information on whether the snow exists between the t.m. and the fixed t.m., measured by the above snow reduction center, and the control points which control the degree of the heat generation by receiving the temperature information on the tracks measured by the temperature center.

(4) patentee: plaintiff

B. Grounds for the trial decision

(1) The defendant filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of the registration of the patented invention of this case on the ground that the patented invention of this case violates Articles 29(2), 54, 47(2), and 42(3) of the Patent Act. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the patented invention as 2002Dang2859 and rendered a trial ruling citing the defendant's claim on October 30, 2004.

(2) Summary of the trial decision of this case

(A) The instant patent invention is non-obviousness compared to the comparable invention 1 publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application, and the comparable invention 2 does not specify the composition and effect to the extent that it can be compared to the instant patent invention. Thus, the instant patent invention does not fall under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act (the Defendant did not dispute the non-obviousness of the instant patent invention, and thus, the instruction of the cited invention 1 and 2 is omitted).

(B) The applicant for a utility model registration in Russia, which is the basis of the priority claim for the patented invention of this case, is the "Radi" joint venture investment company, and the plaintiff applied for the registration of the patented invention of this case in the Republic of Korea as a successor to the right to obtain a patent and the right to priority from the above company. Thus, the priority claim for the patented invention of this case was lawful in accordance with Article 54 of the Patent Act.

(C) For the priority date of the instant patent invention on August 4, 200, the requirements for the correction of the patent application should also be determined in accordance with the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001; hereinafter the same) which is the law applied at the time. The content of the amendment of the patent application for the instant patent invention is merely a more detailed explanation of the visual reduction and location approval corresponding to the publicly known technology, and thus, it is legitimate in accordance with the requirements of Article 47 of the former Patent Act.

(D) Violation of Article 42(3) of the Patent Act

1) The detailed description of the instant patent invention only states that “The position to measure the location of the electric emphere on the emphere date,” and that “the snow emphere is attached to the control device as seen above,” each license does not specify how the emphere is attached to any part of the control device, and the location emphere and snow sphere are stated in the detailed description, but each license does not specify how the emphere is assembled and operated on the line.” However, each license does not specify how the emphere is assembled and operated on the line.

2) The detailed description of the patented invention of this case states that "the applied device's control unit consists of a single chip available to the program and is equipped with a Microcomer connected with the communication equipment based on the electric chip referred to as the digital chip, making it possible to reduce working energy consumption, and increase the stability in the operation of the electric chip under the conditions of different climate and weather conditions." However, there is no detailed indication as to how the applied device's control unit is connected with the micro-cchip composed of a single chip in the above control unit's single chip, and how the applied device's control unit is connected with the telecommunication equipment based on the electric chip, and how the operation energy can be significantly reduced by any operating principle and that the operational stability of the electric chip can be increased under the conditions of weather and weather different from each other.

3) With regard to the description of the detailed description of the instant patent invention, “application devices are installed in the form of a conversion machine installed in the vicinity of an appropriate electric metal machine,” and “the bottom of the current conversion machine shall be located in the bottom of a single chip chip chip,” any condition must be satisfied in order to be “in the vicinity of an appropriate electric metal machine”, “the conversion machine type” means what is “the conversion machine type”, and “the control unit with a single chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip on the bottom of the converted chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip, and is not clearly explained how to mutually assemble and attach on the line, and how to include the method of telecommunication chip chip chip chip chip chip chip.

4) Ultimately, the specification of the instant patent invention does not state the composition and effect of the invention to the extent that it can be easily implemented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the pertinent technical field (hereinafter “satisfic person”).

(D) Therefore, the instant patent invention is not contrary to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, Article 54 of the Patent Act, and Article 47(2) of the former Patent Act, but is contrary to the provisions of Article 42(3) of the Patent Act, and thus its registration should be invalidated.

[Certificate] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) It was true that the Plaintiff added to the specification of the instant patent invention through the last amendment on September 11, 2002, the composition of the snow reduction license in the instant patent invention. However, even at the time of the initial application of the instant patent invention, the technical meaning of the snow reduction license was evident among the parties, and the aforementioned “galsium in the snow reduction license in the instant patent invention” is only one example of the snow reduction license described in the initial patent application, and thus, it cannot be said that it added a new matter.

(2) The requirements to describe the specification of a patented invention include an explanation of the characteristics of the invention by composition and its technical requirements, and an explanation of the detailed implementation pattern through drawings, and the detailed implementation pattern may vary depending on various field conditions. However, if a business entity is a party, the description of the specification of the patented invention of this case can easily understand and implement the technical meaning and organic operational principles of all elements, such as “gregnite,” and “ratium,” and thus, the patented invention of this case does not constitute lack of specification.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

(1) Since the retroactive effect according to the priority claim under Article 54 of the Patent Act does not extend to the amendment, the lawfulness of the amendment of the patented invention in this case is not the former Patent Act, but the current law amended by Act No. 6411 on February 3, 2001, which should be applied. Thus, the final amendment of the patented invention in this case on September 11, 2002, which was made by adding the specific composition of the “gregnite” to the detailed description of the invention, constitutes the addition of new matters, and thus violates Article 47(2) of the Patent Act.

(2) The specification of the instant patent invention does not contain any description or drawings as to whether the snow straw, Rift-il location center is attached and operated in any way on the line, and the instant patent invention is contrary to Article 42(3) of the Patent Act, on the ground that there is no specific combination relationship between the location straw and melting device, even though there exists any technical summary in reducing the consumption of heat energy used in the electric rupture system by applying the existing location rupture to the rupture system.

3. Determination

A. Whether Article 47(2) of the Patent Act violates the Patent Act

(1) Criteria for determination

(A) Article 54(1) of the Patent Act (Article 54(1) of the former Patent Act is the same as Article 54(1) of the same Act) provides that “When a national of the State Party that acknowledges priority over a patent application filed by a citizen of the Republic of Korea under a treaty files a patent application with the State Party or another State Party and claims priority over the same invention, the filing date of the patent application filed by such State Party shall be deemed the filing date of the patent application filed in the Republic of Korea in the application of the provisions of Articles 29 and 36 of the Patent Act.” Thus, the retroactive effect of the filing

Therefore, in determining the legitimacy of the amendment to the patent application of this case, it should be based on the patent application date in the Republic of Korea instead of the priority claim date. Thus, Article 47(2) of the Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001, which was enforced as of July 7, 2001, which was the filing date of the patent application of this case) should be applied. The trial decision of this case erred by misapprehending the above legal principles and applying Article 47(1) of the former Patent Act (only to the extent that the patent applicant does not change the substance or drawings attached to the patent application for the first time, the patent applicant may amend the specification or drawings attached to the patent application within one year and 3 months from the date falling under any of the following subparagraphs, except as provided in paragraph (2)

(B) Where an amendment is made upon receipt of a notice of the grounds for rejection regarding an application for a patent, or where an amendment is made upon receipt of a notice of the grounds for rejection that occurred due to the amendment, the amendment of each specification or drawings can only be made within the scope of the specification or drawings initially attached to the patent application (Article 47(2) of the Patent Act). The addition of a new description is prohibited. In order for an amendment not to constitute an addition of a new description, the amendment must be made only within the scope of the features described in the specification or drawings initially attached to the patent application. In other words, the amendment must be made in light of the description or drawings initially attached to the patent application.

(2) Application and amendment process of the patented invention of this case

The following facts are not disputed by the parties, or acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and all pleadings.

(A) The detailed description of the invention in the specification initially attached to the patent application of this case includes, with respect to snow reduction, i.e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., t., t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t. t.s. t. t.s. t. t.s. t.s. t. t.s. t.s. t.s.)s. t. t.s.s.

(B) On December 17, 2001, the Korean Intellectual Property Office changed the notification of the ground for rejection for the first time to the effect that "it falls under the lack of entry because it is unclear as to which snow would decrease by any action," which includes the Plaintiff’s location information of the line measured in the initial specification of the application, such as "(i) stampers measuring the heat between the above straw and fixed date, and stampers measuring the straw at the straw, ② the straw of the straw and the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the straw of the t.

(C) On July 13, 2002, the Korean Intellectual Property Office issued a notice of rejection to the effect that "it is unclear how the heat can be measured by snow reduction, and how the snow exists from the result of the measurement of the heat." On September 11, 2002, the Plaintiff, through the last correction submitted on September 1, 2002, deleted from the detailed description of the invention, the statement that the snow reduction is possible by measuring the heat between traw and fixed rail days, such as the above (B) instead of removing the statement that the snow reduction is possible by measuring the heat between traw and fixed rail days, "the snow reduction reduction (5)" is widely known in the licensing industry, and as long as it is mutually contradictory to the inside of the claims, it is also deemed to exist through the said changes in the rate of flat electric shock formed by a pair of metal plate and the changes in the external quantity of the screen to which the above changes in the claims are made. Therefore, it is also deemed to exist that the above changes in the external quantity are found to exist.

(3) Whether a new description is added through the amendment

The specification initially attached to the patent application of this case contains only the statement that there is a studio (or a studio to reduce snows) with respect to traws for traws. It is ultimately meaningful to see that there is an initial studio change in the size of traws formed with two metal plates due to changes in studios, and that there is no specific studio change in the size of studios in the field of traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws for traws.

Meanwhile, as seen in paragraph (2) (b) of the above, the plaintiff himself/herself also found the existence of snow by reducing the heat change between the date and the fixed date of knick. However, it is supported by the judgment that, at the time of the last amendment, the plaintiff changed the snow to "a measuring the change in the quantity of snow by measuring the change in the quantity of snow by the method of Lanton," and that the meaning of the last revised "grhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrh" is not obvious to the party.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the amendment to the specification of the patented invention of this case constitutes an addition to new matters and thus is in violation of Article 47(2) of the Patent Act.

B. Whether Article 42(3) of the Patent Act is violated

Even if the amendment to the specification of the patented invention of this case does not constitute the addition of new matters, the patented invention of this case constitutes a lack of specification for the following reasons.

The detailed description of the patented invention of this case states that "the genetic rate is changed between metal plates that form the center when snow exists, and therefore the existence of snow is reduced by using it." The "oil rate" indicates the rate of electric capacity difference at the time when the entire quantity was changed or not opened between the extreme board of contact Denmark. The entire type is very diverse, and the snow or water in nature belongs to all of them. Thus, even if the snow or other foreign material is mixed with metal plates of both countries that form the center, the genetic rate is changed even if the snow or other foreign material is mixed with the patented invention of this case, it is not clear that the detailed description of the patented invention of this case is in conformity with the detailed description of the patented invention of this case because there is no change in the snow rate between the above metal plates, which is not snow or melting material, and if it is operated to the extent that it can easily be seen as being in conformity with the detailed description of the patented invention of this case. Therefore, it is not clear that the detailed description of the patented invention of this case is in conformity with the detailed description.

Therefore, the patented invention of this case violates Article 42(3) of the Patent Act.

C. Sub-committee

The patented invention of this case falls under Article 47(2) of the Patent Act, and even if not, it falls under Article 42(3) of the Patent Act and its registration should be invalidated by Article 133 of the Patent Act. Thus, the decision of this case is justified as it is concluded.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form Omission]

Judges Choi Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)