Whether the public technology is excluded in determining the scope of rights on the registered petition;

In order to determine which device falls within the scope of the right of the registered device, the scope of the right should first be determined on the basis of the scope of the claim for registration of the registered device, and in determining the scope of the right, the prior public technology should be excluded from the scope of the right unless it is closely combined with the new technology. (The device of this case concerns the framework of chain Contac.)

Articles 8 and 25 of the former Utility Model Act

Patent Attorney Lee Jin-chul Industrial Co., Ltd.

For Trade in Labor

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 87Hun-Ba28 dated August 30, 1989

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

As to the ground of appeal by claimant,

1. The court below held that in comparison with the device of this case, the technical composition of this device and Gap evidence 5 (the Utility Model Gazette published in Japan), the technical composition of this device has been completed, and the difference between this case's registration device and the type of the (a) device is merely a change in the degree of simple design, in that the former is composed of the transfer of the transferred object by installing one string days at the support unit's left and right, and the latter establishes two chain chains as a group, and the latter forms two chains as a group.

However, according to the records, the (a) invention also consists of the transfer of "convenition (a)" of "convenition (a)" of "convenition (a)" which has been formed on the upper left and right of the support unit, as in the above A evidence No. 5 device. In order to maintain a consistent opinion, the court below should have judged that the (a) device of the same type as the A evidence No. 5 device should not be subject to its technical composition, and whether it is identical to the A evidence No. 5 device or whether it is identical in comparison with the individual technical composition in the registration body, regardless of whether it is identical to the A evidence No. 5 device or whether it is identical to the A evidence No. 5 device.

2. In order to determine whether a false device falls under the scope of the right in the registered device, the scope of the right should be first determined on the basis of the scope of the claim for registration in the registered device. In determining this, the publicly known technology should be excluded from the scope of the right unless it is an organic combination with a new technology.

According to the records, among the elements of this case's building site's building site's construction section's construction section's construction section's construction section's construction section's bridge, composite brick, fixed stone, chain container's construction mar, mar, etc., the remainder of this case's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction site's construction

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that when comparing the prior designs claimed by claimant that the section for common use in the registry of this case was included in the section for common use in the registry of this case and the proposal for the registration of this case, the registration of this case is not an official announcement, and furthermore, it falls under the scope of the right in the register of this case because it is not an official announcement, and further, it is deemed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the public notice and the scope of the right in the claim for confirmation of the scope of right. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)