In a case where Gap corporation's patent invention "the method of investigating the reaction of Internet broadcasting viewers and its system" collected viewers' reactions to broadcast programs provided in Internet broadcasting through "the viewer response investigation program book" and the viewers' response processing server book, etc., and asserted that registration is null and void on the ground that the nonobviousness of corrective inventions, etc. under paragraph (2) of the above patent invention claims claims concerning "the system providing the result to broadcasting stations and viewers" is denied, the case holding that the corrective invention under paragraph (2) of the above Article 2 is merely merely the exclusive use of the viewers' preference through the previous Internet, and it does not include any technical element realizing this, and thus, non-obviousness is denied.

Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

Africa Co., Ltd. (Law Firm KS, Attorneys Kim-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Aion Communications Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Han Sung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2017Heo5436 decided April 26, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on correction

The lower court determined that: (a) the corrective contents 1 through 3 of the decision of the lower court that limit the content of the viewers’ investigation program under Paragraph 2 (2) of the patent claim (patent registration number omitted; hereinafter referred to as “instant correction invention”) of the instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted; hereinafter referred to as “instant patent invention”) to “the method of investigating the community reaction of the Internet broadcast viewers”; and (b) do not constitute a case where the claims are substantially expanded or modified. The reasons for each correction are the same as the contents indicated in the detailed description of the instant patent invention prior to the correction; (c) the purpose and effect of each correction does not occur; and (d) it does not cause any unexpected damage to a third party.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the

2. As to the ground of appeal on inventive step

A. We examine the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court.

1) As to the corrective invention under paragraph 2

A) Paragraph 2’s corrective invention is related to the system that collects viewers’ response to broadcast programs provided through the Internet broadcast through the viewers’ response investigation program book, the viewers’ response processing server book, etc., and provides the results thereof to broadcasting stations and viewers. Prior inventions 1 in the holding of the lower judgment appear to be an invention on “real-time double-time broadcast system using the Internet environment” and “for the viewers’ access to the website through a separate personal computer and access to the website, and the response result when they respond to the prior question posted on the website, are transmitted through a broadcast system and displayed on TV. Thus, “the inspection of the viewers’ response level using the Internet and the structure reflecting it on the broadcast screen”, the main composition of the corrective invention in paragraph 2, is equally included in the prior invention 1, and is also common in the view of mutual communication of information via the Internet. However, the corrective invention in paragraph 2 is conducted through both the broadcast and the viewers’ response investigation program through the Internet, while the prior invention 1 is also conducted through the Internet reaction reaction only through the Internet.

B) However, in prior inventions 1, the transmission method of a television and a response survey using the Internet is different from that of a television broadcast using public waves, etc., and there is no difficulty in adopting a viewer reaction test through the Internet as shown in the prior inventions 1 while conducting the Internet broadcast in the context of the introduction of the Internet broadcast technology. Moreover, prior inventions 5 have a structure that allows participants to immediately express their opinions on lectures by indicating the Internet lectures at the same time on the computer screen. Moreover, since the response of TV viewers was investigated, reflected in the response of TV viewers, and the method of communication shared with viewers had existed prior to this, it is not difficult to combine the prior inventions 1 with the prior inventions 5. Since the correction of paragraph 2 is not only presenting the technical means to combine the viewer reaction through the Internet broadcast and the Internet, it is not necessary to consider the technical situation that the prior inventions 1 and 5 should be modified to combine the prior inventions 5 with the prior inventions 1 and the prior inventions 5 with the prior inventions 2009.

C) Paragraph 2’s corrective invention represents the reaction of a program by selecting the unique response signal set in advance to “sprink” without a prior question. On the other hand, in Prior Invention 1, viewers are allowed to view television and respond to “unsponsed questions” by accessing the web site. However, in the corrective invention of Paragraph 2, the viewers must be informed of what kind of questions should be given in advance and respond to the response key in advance. As such, the existence of a prior question is not deemed to be a difference in both inventions. In addition, Prior Invention 6 already appears to have the “sponsing the “sponsivity” corresponding to the corrective invention of Paragraph 2, and the “sponsing a prior list of options are assigned to the “sponsants”, and there is no difficulty in adopting such elements.

D) In addition, the effect that real-time viewers’ response can be diminished is based on the nature of the Internet that enables real-time communication with both real-time communication, and it appears in prior inventions 1. The effect of minimizing data load as a signal via reaction key is merely the expected effect, as a matter of course, by using the viewers’ response investigation program, which is set out in advance, instead of the hosting program.

E) Ultimately, the corrective invention of Paragraph 2 is merely merely a mere exclusive use of the viewers’ preference using the existing Internet to the Internet broadcast, and does not include any technical elements realizing this, and its nonobviousness should be deemed to be denied.

2) As to the corrective invention under paragraph 5 and the corrective invention under paragraph 6

Paragraph 5, the corrective invention is related to the composition of traffic processing in order to transmit the response signals received from viewers from the viewers in the “scopic response server server” of the viewers’ response investigation system after analyzing them, and obtaining statistical results, and then transmitting them together with the broadcast images. As seen earlier, it is easy to combine the viewers’ response investigation with the Internet broadcast and the Internet. Moreover, prior inventions 1 is also aimed at real-time showing the viewers’ reaction, accompanied by a drawing showing the result of the survey in real-time, and it is widely known that traffic is being processed after analyzing the voting results. Considering that it is an widely known art, it is possible to analyze the voting results and process traffic, it is also denied the inventive step of Paragraph 6, added to the composition of Paragraph 5 and its subordinate paragraphs “the response server shall transmit the multiple viewers’ opinions changed in real-time.”

B. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of each corrective invention is not denied on the ground that the prior invention 1 is not a technology necessary for Internet broadcast, while the prior invention 5 is an Internet broadcast technology and its combination is not easy, or it is difficult to easily derive each corrective invention even if it combines the prior invention with the widely known and known art. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the inventive step of the patented invention, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)