[1] Criteria for determining the inventive step of a patented invention

[2] The case holding that the inventive step is recognized on the ground that the patent application invention differs from the cited invention's objective and technical composition and action effects, and there are significant improvement and progress effects above the expected effects from the publicly known prior art

[1] The purpose of Article 29(2) of the Patent Act is to ensure that an invention claimed in a patent application is easily derived from the prior art, if it is a creation that lacks inventive step, the degree of difficulty in the creation that measure the existence of inventive step should be determined by considering the difference in technical composition and action effects of the prior art. In addition, if the composition of the patent application is considerably improved and advanced compared with the prior art, it shall be deemed that the invention can not easily be seen by a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains, in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the development of inventive step, if it is considerably improved and advanced compared with the prior art.

[2] The case holding that the non-obviousness is recognized on the grounds that the patent application invention and the cited invention with respect to the manufacture of EXE are clearly different from the purpose, technical composition, and operational effects, and that the patent application invention has a significant improvement and advanced effect above the expected effect from the publicly known prior art, and that the patent application invention can not be easily derived from the cited invention since a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology to which the invention pertains can not easily derive from the cited invention

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu559 delivered on November 11, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3334), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu781 delivered on November 26, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 85), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1798 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3647) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1388 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2498), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1279 delivered on June 13, 197 (Gong197Ha, 2032), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu39279 delivered on September 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2032).

De-dong Agricultural Cooperatives (Patent Attorney Kim Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na2553 dated December 3, 1996

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below judged as to the inventive step in comparison with the quoted invention on May 17, 1986, which is disclosed by the publication number 86-574 of the Patent Gazette No. 1166, on May 17, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "human invention"), and judged as to the inventive step in comparison with the quoted invention on the manufacturing method of the practical X-ray, which is disclosed by the publication number 86-574 (hereinafter referred to as the "human invention"), since both inventions freezing the room in freezing it, and make it easy to see it with the same purpose and composition. However, it is more complicated to rapidly freezing the room in the quoted invention with the temperature of -30 x -2 -30 x - - 3 x mp, so it is not easy to see it as 100 x 25 x z, and it is more easily possible to see it as a ecocop.

2. The purpose of Article 29(2) of the Patent Act is to make an invention claimed in a patent application to lack inventive step when it is a creation that can easily be derived from the prior art, and to make it impossible to obtain a patent. The degree of difficulty in the creation that measure the existence of inventive step or non-obviousness should be determined in consideration of the difference in the composition and the effects of the prior art. In addition, if the composition of the applied technology is considerably improved and advanced compared to the prior art, it shall be determined in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the advancement and development of the technology, and it shall be deemed that the invention can not easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, and it shall be deemed that there is inventive step (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu781, Nov. 26, 1996).

3. The record reveals that the patent application invention of this case and the cited invention of this case are prepared.

(1) First of all, the technology that facilitates coap by freezing the sap through freezing the sap, which is widely known in this technology. The quoted invention does not damage the appearance of the sap at each room when extracting the sap from each room, and without doing harm to the appearance of the sap in its original form, extracted from each sap in its original form, and then recycled the sap partially extracted extracted from each sap as food materials. On the other hand, the patent application invention of this case is to extract only the sapap from each sap through damage to the appearance of the sap and then extract only the sap from each sap and dispose of the remainder, so it is natural that there is no difference between the recycling of the sap and the number of the sap.

(2) The technical composition and its action effects together, and the quoted invention shall be kept in rapid freezing and storing 2 to 3 hours in the temperature of -30°C or -40°C at the temperature of -40°C, while the pending invention in this case shall be kept in rapid cooling to -10°C, -20°C, -25°C.

However, in the rapid freezing of vegetable tissues, a large number of ice colons were distributed in the inside and outside of the cell system, and there is less a small range of sap outflow in the vegetable era, while low-speed vegetable vegetable is formed by a large number of ice colons between cells and cells. When a vegetable vegetable vegetable is created or growing, a large number of vegetable vegetable vegetables are moved outside the cell, and a large number of vegetable vegetable vegetables are destroyed by mechanical damage caused by vegetable vegetables formed with a large change in the shape of a cell and a large change in the shape of a cell. As a result, a large number of vegeap

In addition, in the cited invention, the sap extract from the temperature of -2°C or -3°C. However, in the patent application invention of this case, the 25°C or 30°C is moving from the heating source (heat source) to the heating source water of the 25°C or 30°, so it is possible to operate a large quantity of the sap in a short time regardless of the location of the sap.

나아가 착즙시 인용발명은 매실을 콘테이너에 넣은 후 적층하여 50㎏/㎤의 무게로 2­3시간 정도 눌러 15 내지 20%의 매실즙이 추출되도록 하고 착즙을 한 매실은 식용 등으로 재활용할 수 있는 것임에 비하여, 이 사건 출원발명은 100 내지 200 바아(bar)의 힘으로 눌러주어 착즙률(착즙율)을 65%로 하고, 사용된 매실은 찌꺼기만 남게 된다.

In this point, both inventions are different in terms of technical composition and action effects.

4. As seen earlier, the invention in the instant case and the cited invention are clearly different from the purpose, technical composition, and operational effects, and the patent application invention in the instant case are deemed to have a manifestly improved and advanced effect beyond the expected effect from the publicly known prior art. As such, the patent application invention in the instant case can not easily derive from the cited invention, and thus, the nonobviousness is recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the invention of this case is more complicated than the cited invention, and it is not possible to obtain a patent registration pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act because the invention of this case is more complicated without a special improvement in its effect than the cited invention, and it is not possible to obtain a patent registration pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, because the invention of this case is a retired invention without properly understanding the publicly notified technological level or the core technological contents of the patented invention of this case and the cited invention of this case. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of inventive step due to a mistake in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the argument on this point is with merit.

5. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)