Suwon Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Lee this Chapter (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

5, 2003

1. The part concerning claims No. 1, 2, and 4 of the Patent Registration Act among the trial decisions rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 30, 2002 regarding the case No. 815 of the Patent Act shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be four minutes and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on September 30, 2002 on the case No. 815 of 2001 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Patent invention of this case

(1) The defendant is the right holder of the patented invention of this case (patent No. 209824, July 22, 1997) such as the patent number No. 209824, Apr. 22, 1999), which is named as "cargo loaded with cargo loaded with a cover."

(2) The patented invention of this case is related to a cargo loaded onto a cargo vehicle to prevent the loading of cargo vehicles from being covered by the loading of cargo vehicles, and its technical summary is as follows.

“1. Packaging and packaging support molds. In the case of the cargo loaded boom-muffs that open and open the cover to load by means of a cover opening, the first cover cover (10) consisting of b.(4) and b.(5) and the first cover cover (10) consisting of b. b. c.s. and b. c.s. (3) connected to the b.s. and the b. c.s. c.s. (2) linked to the b.s. b. c.s. b. b. c.s. c.s. 2 (0) and 2-m. consisting of the first cover (3) linked to the b.s. c. c.s. b. c. c.s. b. b. c.s. b. c. c.s. c.s. 2-m. c.s.).

2. In paragraph 1 of this Article, in the case of paragraph 2 of this Article, the two cover 2 cover 2 cover 40 (40), and the first unit 1 unit 42 (a) equipped with the h unit 43 (43) and the h unit 42a (42), also the h unit 44a (4), and the second unit 42 unit 4 (4) equipped with the h unit h unit hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor

3. In paragraph 1 or 2, cargo-to-cargo-to-board automatic openings (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 3”) with the characteristics of consisting of a sub-branch (31) on the back of the above 2-muffs (20), combined by a sub-branch (31), equipped with a string (32) with a string (30) capable of maintaining a certain angle.

4. In paragraph 1, the cargo loaded on the part of the cargo loaded on the part of the cargo loaded on the surface of the cargo loaded on the ship (B) (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim 4”).

B. Summary of the cited invention

(1) A cited invention 1

As described in the annex 2, the quoted invention 1, as described in the annex 2, is an invention launched in P 4-41425 (A4) of the Japanese Utility Model Gazette which was disclosed on April 8, 192, the patent invention of this case, which is disclosed on April 8, 192, and the technical summary of which is described in the claims, is that the axis (3) is dried and revolving on the upper right wall of the loading box (1), and a group of those fixed in the twit frame (5) are fixed on the upper right part of the press (5) so that it can be combined with other convenience frame (7) at the upper right part of the press (7) so that it can be combined with 10 twits (10 twits) and one 3 twits (10 twits) with the upper right part of the supporting base, which can be adjusted by one 10 twits (10 twits) with the upper part (10 twits) length).

(2) A cited invention 2

The cited invention 2, as described in the attached drawing 3, is an invention commenced on March 5, 1981 in the Japanese Utility Model Gazette No. 56-2439 (Evidence 5) published on March 5, 1981 prior to the application of the patented invention in this case, and the technical summary of the invention is as described in the claims. The technical summary of the invention is as follows: “The string of soil on the right side of the truck shall be installed in a street according to the string of earth, and the string (4) which operates the revolving axis shall be set up in the appropriate part of the body of the body, and the string (5, 7) which is attached to the line (6) before and after this revolving axis, shall be attached to the middle level of the string line (7) on which the string line is attached, and the 2ndring line (7) on which the string line and the string line (7) on the outer upper part of the earth installed in accordance with the size of the 2nd (7).

(3) A cited invention 3

별지 도면 3 기재와 같은 인용발명 3은 갑6호증은 이 사건 특허발명이 출원되기 전인 1997. 4. 8. 출원되고 같은 해 7. 22 공개된 등록특허공보 특0179471(갑6호증)에 개시된 발명으로서 그 기술요지는 상세한 설명에 기재된 바와 같이, “… 트럭의 적재함에 있어서, 전면판(4)의 상판(5)에는 상, 하 가이드레일(12)(14)이 구비된 안내가이드(10)가 설치되고, 위 전면판의 양측에는 엑츄에이터(22)의 구동에 의해 회전될 수 있도록 구동수단(20)이 설치되며, 양 측판(6)의 상측에는 위 구동수단에 의해 회전되는 회전축(34)이 구비되고 커버(38)가 씌워진 제1덮개부(32), 이 제1덮개부의 일단에 힌지축(42)이 구비되고 커버가 씌워진 제2덮개부(40), 그리고 제2덮개부의 전방 양측에 제1, 2링크(50)(52)로 이루어진 덮개수단(30)이 설치되고, 제1, 2덮개부의 후방에는 고정구(64)에 의해 고정되는 후방링크(62), 일단에 회전링크(68)가 구비된 고정대(66), 위 후방링크 및 고정대의 외측에 덮여지는 커버(38)로 이루어진 후방커버(60)가 설치되며, 위 제2덮개부(40)에는 후방커버의 고정구로 연결되는 와이어(82)가 구비된 것을 특징으로 한 것 …”(갑6호증, 4쪽 5줄 내지 10줄 참조)이다.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

The plaintiff filed a petition against the defendant for an invalidation trial that the patented invention of this case should be invalidated without a newness or non-obviousness, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the above request as the case No. 2001Da815 and dismissed the above request on September 30, 2002.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

(1) Preparation for the instant patent invention and cited inventions

(A)Preparation for purposes

In the technical field, the patented invention of this case and the cited invention 1 are the same as in the case of the cargo loaded with a truck cover opening and closing device, and in the technical task, the purpose of this study is to reduce the load of the cover opening and closing operation device by reducing the top radius in the technical task.

(B) Preparation for composition

① In line with the first cover of the instant patent invention, bat(5) is a shorter axis that is separate from the second cover 2nd unit for the purpose of inserting it into the middle part of the third unit (45), so that it can be inserted into the middle part of the third unit (45), and there is no composition corresponding to the cited invention 1. The first cover unit of the instant patent invention is the same as the first unit of the first unit (1), bat (16), and bating (22) of the first cover 4-21536 of the Japanese Patent Gazette disclosed on August 6, 192 (at the time of a trial decision, the first cover unit of the instant patent invention was submitted) disclosed on August 6, 1992.

② Next, in the composition of the second cover (6) of the instant patent invention, none of them can be found in the cited invention 1, and the second cover (2) of the instant patent invention consists of three operating bars. As to the cited invention 1, the cited invention consists of Leber (10), Aam (13), Aam (17), and Sing (16).

③ Therefore, it is technically difficult for a person who has ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field to make an invention of the patented invention of this case by taking a part of the elements, such as the quoted invention 1 and the invention in the Patent Gazette of Japan.

(c)Preparation for operational effects;

The patented invention of this case can reduce the load required for the dynamic axis, and use a small volume cap. Such action effect cannot be seen as naturally predicted from the quoted invention 1 and the inventions under the above Japanese Patent Gazette. Thus, it is recognized that the patented invention of this case has the inventive step effect.

2. The party's assertion as to the legitimacy of the trial decision of this case

A. Grounds for revoking the trial decision of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the purpose of the instant patent invention and cited inventions

The purpose of the patented invention of this case is to cover the existing cargo loaded with two or more cargo lanes, thereby ensuring that they can cover the cargo loaded with two or more coverings, thus making the cover cover cover cover cover tights and reduce the capacity of the mother that is a power unit. The purpose of the invention is to cover the cargo loaded with two parts of the cited invention. Thus, the purpose of the invention is the same.

(2) Preparation for the composition of the instant patented invention and cited inventions

(A) The first cover of the instant Claim No. 1 invention consists of one cover (5), one cover (4), and one cover (8) of the quoted invention 1; the first cover of the instant Claim No. 1 invention consists of one cover (3), one cover (3), and one cover (2), and one cover (6), which are installed on the part of the package (3) supporting the cite invention 1; the second cover of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is composed of two cover (6) and one cover (6) of the quoted invention 1; the second cover of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is composed of two cover (10), one (10), one (13), one (17 (17), and 7).

(B) The instant Claim 1 invention is a structure that connects the packaging support frame (21) and Ba (4) to the sping (6). The quoted invention 1 merely states that “the overlap between the two covering functions shall be facilitated” and “the covering of the two covering (16)” is not different from the attachment location of the sphering in that it connects Les (10) and the sphere (13) to the sphering (16). However, regardless of the existence of the sphering, the aforementioned sphering has the same function in that there is no difference between the attachment location of the sphering, and that the said sphering can be carried out in an unsphering manner without a shock.” The specification of the instant patented invention merely states that “the overlap between the two covering functions shall be facilitated” and does not have a specific operating relationship or effect.

(C) The first joint salary class (42) of the instant Claim No. 2 is identical to the cited invention 1’s Leber (10), and the second joint salary class of the instant Claim No. 2 is identical to the Aamam (13) which combines with Leber (10) and has a length adjustment means (19), and the third joint salary class (45) of the instant Claim No. 2, respectively, to the cited invention 1’s Aam (13) and Simtees (5) and fin (18) and each of the joints (17) combined with Leber (14).

(D) However, the instant Claim 2 invention contains a erode (42a) (44a) on the 2nd cover counter (40). On the contrary, the cited invention 1 is different in terms of lerode (10) and lerode (13). However, the erode of the instant Claim 2 invention is merely a small bend of the erode of the erode (10) and the erode (13). However, the erode of the instant Claim 2 invention constitutes a simple design change to prevent the absentee interference, and the link (9) of the quoted invention 2 is also a small bend counter.

(E) The latter cover (30) of the instant Claim 3 invention is identical to the structure of a rearer (60) with a rearer (62) comprised of a rear link (62) and a revolving link (68), etc. at the rear of the cited invention 3.

(F) The instant Claim 4 invention is composed of the bloet (2) of the instant Claim 1 invention in the aspect of (B) to load the bloet (2), which is the same as that set up in the side wall (2) to load the bloet (3) of the quoted invention 1 as urbanized in No. 4 of the quoted invention 1’s drawing.

(3) Preparation for the effects of the patented invention of this case and the quoted inventions

In the case of the cited invention 1, if the length of Aamam (13) is adjusted by means of length adjustment (19), the first set (4) and the second set (6) are horizontal, and thus, there is an effect of completely covering the loading of the patented invention as in the instant case.

(4) Accordingly, the patented invention of this case is identical to the cited invention 1, 2, 3, composition, and effect of the patented invention, and a person with ordinary knowledge in this technology may easily make the invention from the quoted invention.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) As to the purpose of the instant patent invention and cited inventions

The purpose of the patented invention of this case is to adopt a structure that reduces the revolving radius, reduces the size of the base, economically favorable, and reduces the area of the cover when the cover is not used, compared to the purpose of the patented invention 1 and 2, the cited invention 1 and 2 cannot inferred these technical tasks. Thus, the purpose of the patented invention of this case is different from that of the patented invention of this case.

(2) Preparation for the composition of the instant patented invention and cited inventions

(A) The first cover (10) of the instant Claim No. 1 invention consists of two parts (4) formed with balar (5). On the contrary, the first cover (10) of the quoted invention 1 is different in that the balar (5) corresponding thereto consists of structural frame. The Plaintiff’s assertion is confused with the first cover (10) of the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

(B) The heading (6) of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is composed of the two covers (20) into the first cover (10). The two covers (20) can easily overlap with the two covers (20) and save the power of the mother and the upper part of the covers (20) can be divided into the upper part of the cargo loaded, thereby raising the smuggling of the cargo loaded. In addition, the operation of the first cover (10) and the second cover (20) during the opening, closing, closing, or cover of the automatic opening equipment and operation of the automatic opening equipment would operate to ensure that the restoration power can be maintained properly. On the other hand, it is different in terms of the non-string (7) of the quoted invention No. 1 in response thereto, but it is different in terms of the non-string (16) of the quoted invention, as well as in terms of the non-string (10) type 16.16.16.16.16.16.16.16.22.

(C) The second cover of the instant Claim No. 2 (2) invention (40) contains a valley (42a) (44a). On the other hand, the cited invention 1 is different in that there is no such emerculation.

(D) The Claim 3 invention of this case completely covers the rear side of the cargo loaded with the rear cover (30) and can be at least 100% of the closed floor area ratio. The composition corresponding thereto is not the cited inventions.

(E) The second cover (40) of the patented invention of this case is a structure attached to approximately 1/3 location of the loading box and 2/3 location of the 2/3 location of the loading box, and the central axis is spreading rapidly. Thus, the front cover does not occur during the loading operation, but the front cover (7) method of the cited invention 1 is different from the structure that has to be installed in both sides before the loading box, that is, the central axis.

(3) Preparation for the effects of the patented invention of this case and the quoted inventions

(A) In the overlapping method, the patented invention of this case covers the loading of the patented invention by one action. On the contrary, the cited invention 1 is different in that it covers the loading of the patented invention by two steps covering the upper part of the loading box while making a stop once leber (10) contacts with the axis (3), and it is different in that it covers the loading of the patented invention by two steps covering the upper part of the loading box (13).

(B) In a sealed container, the patented invention of this case has almost 10% of the sealed floor area ratio with the grains (42a), 44a (44a), sping (6), 30 (30) and sping (32). On the contrary, the quoted invention 1 forms a angle with the wire frame (5) and the wire frame (7).

(4) As to the cited invention 3

The evidence No. 6, 3 of the quoted invention 3, is the same as the filing date of the patented invention of this case, and the prior relation cannot be known. Thus, it cannot be recognized as prior art materials of the patented invention of this case.

(5) Accordingly, the patented invention of this case is not easily made from the cited inventions by a person with ordinary knowledge in this technology, because the purpose, composition, and effect of the cited inventions and inventions are different.

3. Determination

A. Preparation for the instant Claim 1 invention and the cited invention 1 and 2

(i)the purpose of the invention;

The instant patent invention and cited inventions 1, 2 are the same as the instant patent invention in that they relate to the automatic opening of a cover with a cargo vehicle to prevent the loading of a cargo vehicle by covering the loading of a cargo vehicle.

Next, the purpose of the invention is to prevent accidents by reducing the revolving diameter when opening or closing the loaded box by using a health stand for the specific purpose of the invention, the cover covering the first cover and the second cover with the second cover. In the case of the patented invention in this case, the purpose of the invention is to prevent the falling of the loaded cargo by using the device covering the previous unit with the upper unit with the upper unit with the double cover, as well as to prevent the falling of the loaded cargo by properly covering the upper surface with the upper part. In the case of the cited invention 2, the purpose of the invention is not to specify the specific purpose of the invention, but to prevent the falling of the loaded cargo by properly covering the upper part with the cited invention in the composition of the first cover and the second cover with the second cover with the upper part of the patented invention in this case. Thus, the patented invention in this case is identical not only to the cited invention 1 but also to the cited invention 2.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the technical task cannot be inferred to reduce noise and packaging by reducing the resistance of the air by reducing the quoted invention 1 and 2, so insofar as the defendant has a cover of the overlapped loading box 1, 2 and 2 of the quoted invention 1 and 2, as long as the defendant has a cover of the overlapped loading box 1, 2 and 2 of the quoted invention 1 and 2, it can reduce the resistance of the air at the time of operation by putting the cover on the container, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

(ii)the composition of the invention;

(A) First, in order to prepare for the cited inventions, Claim 1 invention of this case is divided by each component into two parts: “In the case of the cargo vehicle loaded with a cargo vehicle covering a cover with the packaging and packaging support framework, opening or closing the cover to be loaded by opening or closing it by means of an open opening with a cover, the first cover unit (10) comprised of f. (4) and f. (5) (hereinafter “the first cover unit”) and the f. (1) connected with the f. (1) and the f. (3) connected with the f.o. (1) and the f. (2) connected with the above f.o. (2), the first cover unit (hereinafter “instant 2”) consisting of two cover units (6) connected with the packing support framework (hereinafter “20 unit”) (hereinafter “this case”).

(B) The first cover (10) consisting of the first cover (f) and the second cover (5) consisting of the composition of the instant first cover (f) and the first cover (10 (f), and the first cover (3) of the quoted invention 1, corresponding thereto, are able to string and revolving the upper part of the wall on the left side of the loading box (1). A group of the set presses (5) are fixed on the top of the set presses (5) and the top of the set presses (5) are fixed on the top of the set presses (8). As regards the composition of the set of the first cover (4), the set of the instant first cover (10) consisting of fin(5) and the first cover (10) of the composition of the instant case is identical only to the cited invention 1’s fin (8).

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the first cover (10) of the first cover (10) of the composition of this case consisted of fash (5) fash (4), and on the contrary, the first cover (5) of the quoted invention 1, which is corresponding thereto, is different in that it consists of structural frame. However, the third cover (13 pages No. 4 of the quoted invention 1), the third cover (5) of the drawing of the quoted invention 1, makes the shape of "baar" immediately as the fash (4) of the patented invention of this case, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(C) In regard to the composition of the 2nd unit of this case, “the 1st unit unit operation method consisting of a stude (1) and a stude (3) connected to the 2nd unit of this case and a 2nd unit of this case,” and corresponding quoted invention 1’s “the 1st unit operation method consisting of a stude (M) and a stude (3) stude are able to revolving the stude and the 2nd unit of this case, and the 2nd unit of the 4th unit (the 2nd unit is an urban where there is no drawing sign, but there is an absence connecting the 3rd unit with the 4th unit(2) with the 3rd unit(3) of the map,” both composition are the same as only the existence of a minor expression, “The 4th unit can revolving and revolving.”

(D) With respect to the 3nd unit of the instant case, the 2nd unit (20) unit (2nd unit) comprised of “sping (21) connecting the packaging support framework (21)” and corresponding quoted invention 1, the health stand, the packing support framework (21) of the instant 3 unit and the printing frame (7th unit) of the quoted invention 1 are identical as a cover covering the upper part of the outer framework (A and cited invention 1, referred to as “spons”) supporting the upper part of the outer framework (as regards the cited invention 1, referred to as “spons”).

However, while the third composition of the instant case connects the packaging support framework as there is a sping (6), the cited invention 1 does not have any composition corresponding thereto, and instead, the sping (16) is installed between Leber (10) and Aam (13).

(E) The composition of the citing Invention 1 of the cited Invention 4 "The 2-muffs (40) "the 2-muffs (40) with which the opening of the 2-muffs (10)," which is the fourth composition of the instant 4, correspond to the composition of "the counter-muffs (the 10-muffs (13) and the connection (17)" of the citing Invention 1. As the composition of the instant 4 does not specifically limit the counter-muffs (40) to the 2-muffs (the 40). Thus, the 1muffs of the cited Invention 1 correspond to this.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the second cover (40) of the patented invention of this case was attached to approximately 1/3 location of the loading box and about 2/3 location of the 2/3 location, and the central axis was spreading, and the central axis was different from the front cover (7) method of the quoted invention 1, which is a structure with a structure with a strong central axis, the central axis was concentrated. Thus, the defendant merely stated that the second cover cover cover (40) is fixed to the slab (41), and that the specification of the patented invention of this case only stated that the second cover cover cover cover cover (40 lines) is fixed to the Bret (41) installed on the part of the loading box (40 lines) on the part of the loading box (1/30 lines), and in the case of the cited invention 1, the defendant's assertion that the two cover cover cover cover cover (40 lines) is installed on the part of the loading box (7) is without merit.

(f) Accordingly, the Claim 1 invention of this case is identical to the cited invention 1 except for the sprinking of the third composition of this case. Therefore, it is more detailed as to whether the following (3) (b) contains a difference in the operating effects depending on the location of the installation of a sprinkler.

(iii)Preparation for operational effects;

(A) The patented invention of this case is not used ... 1, 2 m. 1 and 5 m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 3 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. 1 m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. k. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. k. m. m. m. m. k. k. m. k. m. m. m. m. m. m. k. m. k. k. k. m. m. m. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. m. m. m. k. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. k. m. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k.>

(B) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that, with regard to the difference in the license of the instant Claim No. 1 in the above (2) (d), the sping (6) of the instant Claim No. 1 takes the two cover (20) into the first cover (10). On the other hand, the cited Claim No. 1’s sping (16) has the function of examining Aam (13) against Leber (10) in the fixed form when the period overlaps, both inventions have a different effect.

However, with respect to the function of the Claim 1 invention of this case, the specification of the patented invention of this case is effective to facilitate the loading of the two covers in the order and opposite to the above, with the direction of the tamper when it is overlapped, and the tamping (6) will play a role of facilitating the overlapping of the two covers. As such as the tamping (5 7 to 8 lines of evidence No. 3) (6) connected with the packaging support mold (21) (4) and the tamping (1) with each other, and at the same time, it is stated that the loading of the 1 and 2 covers are covered by 1 and 1, as the tamping (1,000 covered by the tamper) and 1,000 covered by the tamping (1,000 covered by the tamping (1,000 covered by the 1,000 covered by the tamping (1,000 covered by the tamping).

If so, these effects by the monitoring of the two inventions do not change the operating mechanism that covers the loading of the two inventions by the existence or location of the sprinking, but merely have the effect that the actions to unsprinke or fold the loading of the two inventions by the carbon of the sprinking, and the effects by the monitoring of the two inventions are substantially the same.

In addition, it is merely well-known technology that connects sports members by using a sprinking with a certain resistance power among the sports members. If a person who has ordinary knowledge in the art to which the patented invention of this case belongs, the composition of the sprink (6) of the quoted invention 1 can easily be made, and the effects of the sprink (6) invention of this case can be sufficiently predicted, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the Claim 1 invention of this case can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the patented invention of this case pertains, from 1 and 2 of the cited invention.

B. Preparation for the instant Claim 2 invention and the cited invention 1 and 2

(1) Claim 2 of this case

The Claim 2 invention of this case is a subordinate claim of the Claim 1 of this case, which is characterized by the composition of Section 4 of this case "B" of Section 4 of this case, is composed of "Bloket (41), an hinge (43), an hinge (42) and an hinge (42a) equipped with a hinge, a hinge (44a), a hinge (44b), and a hinge (45b) with a hinge, a hinge (45b) equipped with a hinge (45a), and the hinge's hinge in the middle part of Section 4 of this case. Therefore, it is considered that the hinge's hinge's hinge's hinge is composed of "3 hinge's hinge's hinge (45b) equipped with an interim part of the hinge

(2) Preparation for composition

The first parallel (42) of the Claim 2 invention of this case refers to Leber (10) of the quoted invention 1, and the second parallel (44) of the Claim 2 of this case refers to Aamam (13) of the quoted invention 1, and the third parallel (45) of the Claim 2 of this case refers to the third parallel (17) of the quoted invention 1. The two parts of the two inventions are identical in that each of the aforementioned parts of the cited inventions are divided into three parts.

However, the Claim 2 invention of this case has a studio (42a and 44a) and the 1studio (42) and the 2ndudio (44), while the 1studio (42a and 44a) has no such studio, and the 1studio is composed of a studio attached (7) on the link (9) of the cited invention 2, and the 2ndroudio (7) is composed of a studio attached (7). Thus, the 2nd inventions of this case consist of the 1studio (42), 2ndroud (44) and 3ndudio (45), 1’s 2ndroudio (10), 13throudio (17thm frame (including a 7ndroude) combined with the 9ndroude of the 2ndroude of the cited invention.

Therefore, the instant Claim 2 invention is identical to the combination of the elements of the cited invention 1 and 2, and both the cited invention 1 and 2 are the same as the purpose of the instant patent invention, and the basic composition of the corresponding elements is the same as that of the instant patent invention, and the person having ordinary knowledge in the art to which the instant patent invention pertains, cannot be deemed as having technical difficulty in making the instant Claim 2 invention by combining the cited invention 1 and 2.

(iii)Preparation for operational effects;

(A) The instant Claim 2 invention can adjust the angles of the cover openings covering the loading in accordance with length section (44b) that can adjust the length of the stude (42a) and the stude (44) in the stude (42a), the 2ndude (44), and the 2ndude (44) of the 2ndude (44) of the 1stude (42). Accordingly, the cover openings can cover the loading in a horizontal way.

In response, the effects of the quoted invention 1, which correspond, are formed to make it possible to adjust the length of connecting amam (13) (17) with the specification, so it is difficult to recognize that there is a confession that the loading of am (13) with the above am (17) can be adjusted by am (13) and the starting frame (5) are changed, and that there is a change in the horizontal angle of the starting frame (7) due to the difference in the angle of the connecting am (13). Thus, it is difficult to recognize that there is an assertion that there is an assertion that there is a confession against the above am (13) with the am (17 to 14 lines of evidence (see evidence 4-13) and that there is an assertion that there is an assertion that there is an assertion that there is an assertion that the loading of am (13) with the am (17) and the am (17) with the am (14 lines) can not be ascertained by the confession of the above am).

In addition, the cited invention 2 has the effect of covering the attachment (7) on the horizontal basis due to the studio of link (9). Accordingly, the quoted invention 1 and 2 have the same effect as the instant Claim 2 invention.

(B) On the other hand, the defendant argues that the patented invention of this case covers the loading of the patented invention of this case by one action. On the other, the quoted invention 1 covers the loading of the patented invention of this case by one action. On the other hand, the quoted invention of this case covers the loading of the patented invention of this case to a person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case which belongs to the patented invention of this case since it is argued that the effects of the patented invention of this case are different in that it covers the loading of the upper part of the patented invention of this case by two stages of action covering Aam (13) while continuously turning back the power of the leam (13). Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit since it is difficult for the above defendant to have a person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case.

(C) In addition, the defendant argues that the patented invention of this case has a close floor area ratio of almost 100% by the valley (42a) (44a) and sping (6), and that the quoted invention 1 has a fast-end volume in forming a wire frame (5) and a wire frame (7). Thus, as seen in the above paragraph (a) above, it is effective to regulate the angle of wire-line covering the 1st loading of the quoted invention, and the quoted invention 2 is loaded on the link (9) with a horizontal cover (7) and both inventions are combined (e.g., the combination has the same effect as the invention of this case) as claimed by the defendant, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the Claim 2 invention of this case can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the patented invention of this case pertains, from 1 and 2 of the cited invention.

C. Preparation for the instant Claim 3 inventions and quoted inventions

(1) Claim 3 invention of this case

The instant Claim Nos. 1 and 2 inventions are subordinate claims of the instant Claim Nos. 1 and 2, and are combines with “singing (31) to be able to move by an sing-line (32) and equipped with a sing-line (32) to maintain a certain angle.”

(2) comparison with the cited invention 1 and 2

As seen earlier, the non-obviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1 and 2 cited in the instant Claim Nos. 3 inventions is not recognized compared with the cited Invention No. 1 and 2. However, the composition of the instant Claim No. 3 inventions combines with the front section (31) of the second cover (20), which is an element newly added, to the instant Claim No. 3 inventions, so that the rear cover (30) is formed, which is capable of maintaining a certain angle, and the rear cover (32) which is equipped with the rear cover (31) which is an element of the instant Claim No. 3 inventions, is not described or described in anywhere in the cited Invention No. 1 and 2, and further, the specification of the instant Claim No. 3 inventions of the instant Claim No. 4, which covers the effect of these composition, can be combined with the 2nd cover (31) inventions of the instant Claim No. 2, which would be able to be combined with the outer cover (32nd cover) of the instant Claim No. 3, which would be combined with the new cover (2).

(3) Claim 3 inventions and No. 6 of this case

A’s No. 6 is the filing date of April 8, 1997, and the date of disclosure is July 22 of the same year. However, the date of disclosure is the same as the filing date of the instant No. 3 invention, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that A6 was distributed prior to the filing date of the instant No. 3 invention due to the Plaintiff’s transfer certificate, and there is no evidence to support that A. 6 was distributed prior to the filing date of the instant No. 3 invention, and thus, A’s No. 6

(4) As to the expanded assertion of seafarers and determination thereof

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the other components constituting the instant Claim 3 are identical to the cited invention 1 and 2, and that the latter cover (30) is identical to the composition of a rearer (62) which consists of a rear link (62) and a revolving link (68). Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant Claim 3 invention is null and void by a seafarer’s provision expanded under Article 29(3) of the Patent Act.

(B) In order to determine whether the invention described in Gap evidence No. 6 is a seafarer whose status had been expanded for the invention described in paragraph (3) of this case, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no assertion or proof as to what the specification initially attached to Gap evidence No. 6 application should be prepared for the invention described in the specification initially attached to Gap evidence No. 6 application and the invention described in paragraph (3) of this case.

(C) Furthermore, even if there is a assertion or proof on the specification initially attached to A6 evidence application, to be applied by the so-called expanded seafarer rule, all the elements constituting the invention of this case 3 invention of this case should be the same as the invention described in the detailed description and drawing(s) of evidence A6. Thus, as alleged by the Plaintiff, if the elements of some of the invention of this case 3 invention of this case are the same as the quoted invention 1 and 2, and other elements are the same as the invention described in evidence A6, there is no room for application of the so-called expanded seafarer rule under Article 29(3) of the Patent Act, and the above assertion by the Plaintiff is not reasonable.

D. Preparation for the instant Claim 4 invention and the cited invention 1 and 2

(1) Claim 4 invention of this case

The instant Claim 4 invention is a subordinate claim to the instant Claim 1, and is characterized by limiting that “B” is installed in the aspect of loading box (B) in its composition.

(2) comparison with the cited invention 1 and 2

The composition of the “B” of the instant Claim No. 4 invention “to be installed in the aspect of the package (B) supporting the axis (3)” is the same as the composition (not indicated in the drawing code) attached to the side wall (2) of the cited invention 1 as the case in which the absence supporting the axis (3) is loaded (1) as in the drawing of the cited invention 1’s drawing. Therefore, both inventions have the same effect as covering both inventions on the side of loading the cover on the side of the loading on the part of the loading on the part of the loading on the part of the loading on the part of the loading on the surface. As seen earlier, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention cited in the instant Claim No. 4 invention is not recognized by the cited invention 1 and 2. As such, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 4 invention also is not recognized by the cited invention 1 and 2.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of this case shall be invalidated in violation of Article 29 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 5576 of Sep. 23, 1998). Paragraph (3) of this case is not patented in violation of Article 29 (2) of the same Act. Thus, the part concerning the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of this case among the trial decision of this case is unlawful in conclusion, and the part concerning Paragraph (3) of this case is justified.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified only for the part concerning the invention of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of this case, and the part concerning the invention of paragraph (3) of this case is dismissed as there is no ground for appeal.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)