Determination of Inventive Step
I. Trial for Invalidation of Patent Registration No. 141506
Patent Court’s Decision No. 2006HEO1629 published on Sep. 22, 2006
Supreme Court’s Decision No. 2006HU3052 published on May 29, 2008
- dismissed
1. Gist of the present patented invention and cited invention
(1) Present patented invention
Claim 1. Skin protective underwear comprising: a covering layer formed on the underwear, the covering layer deposited by materials selected from a group of gold, silver, selenium and germanium.
Claim 2. Skin protective underwear comprising: one or two covering layers formed on a textile layer, the covering layer deposited by materials selected from a group of gold, silver, selenium and germanium.
(2) Cited invention
① Cited invention 3
Cited invention 3 relates to a fabric being interposed between an outer sheet and an inner sheet of each of various clothing, to provide a thermal retaining property. In the technical constitution, a metal deposition layer is formed on at least one side of a basic fabric.
② Cited invention 5
Cited invention 5 relates to a method of manufacturing a warp knit fabric having great breathability, good thermal retaining property and adhesion resistance. In the technical constitution, after a vinyl chloride adhesive is applied to one side of a grey fabric of a polyester warp knit fabric having low elasticity, aluminum is deposited thereon.
2. Patent Court’s decision (2006HEO1629)
The present patented invention and each of the cited inventions are identical with each other, with respect to the constitution of depositing a metal layer on a fabric layer. Only the difference between the present patented invention and each cited invention is the materials being deposited. The point that a person skilled in the art selects deposition materials according to the purpose of using a fabric is nothing but a simple design matter. Therefore, it is difficult to consider that the present patented invention is different from each cited invention with respect to the technical idea. The difference in the effects is only the difference according to the properties of the metals deposited on the fabrics. Accordingly, it is difficult to consider that the effects of the present patented invention are particular or remarkable, compared with each cited invention.
3. Supreme Court’s decision (2006HU3052)
When a characteristic of a patented invention results by collecting and putting together the publicly known and used prior art and the well-known and commonly used art, the invention cannot be considered as having an inventive step unless there are any special difficulties in putting the aforementioned prior art together or unless the acting effects thereof result in a new synergy effect beyond the effect predicted from the publicly known prior art. In the case where any well-known and commonly used art is not generally known to the extent that it is considered as being publicly known or a noticeable fact in a trial, such art needs to be verified in a trial for cancellation of trial decision. However, the Court can approve the well-known and commonly used art through the materials shown in the records, such as evidence, based on a free suspicion where there is no doubt or question about it.
The specification of the present patented invention describes that, as the conventional art, gold, silver, selenium and germanium have useful efficacy for a human body. In light of this description, the point that gold, silver, selenium and germanium have useful efficacy for a human body is considered as the well-known and commonly used art. Further, the present patented invention is not considered as having any difficulties in the constitution because it selects gold, silver, selenium and germanium of the well-known and commonly used art as metal materials and simply combines the selected materials with the art disclosed in cited inventions 3 and 5 of depositing a metal layer, such as aluminum or the like, to the fabrics or clothes. Further, as stated in the decision of the original trial, the present patented invention is not considered as having any new synergy effects more than the effects predicted from the combination of the cited inventions 3 and 5 and the well-known and commonly used art. Accordingly, the present patented invention is considered as having no inventive steps since it can be easily invented from cited inventions 3 and 5 and the well-known and commonly used art by a person having ordinary knowledge in the field of technology to which the invention pertains, as stated in the decision of the original trial.
II. Trial for Invalidation of Patent Registration No. 379946
Patent Court’s Decision No. 2005HEO1554 published on Dec. 16, 2005
Supreme Court’s Decision No. 2006HU138 published on Aug. 24, 2007
- returned for retrial
1. Gist of the present patented invention and cited invention
(1) Present patented invention (claim 3)
An apparatus for processing an emergency call using a mobile communication network in a mobile communication terminal which comprises:
a keypad to perform a voice communication and a functional input for sending text information,
a duplexer to separate transmitted/received signals by performing a wireless communication with a mobile communication network,
a receiving unit to receive a receiver voice signal and text information from the mobile communication network,
a voice processing unit to output the receiver voice signal from the receiving unit through a speaker and to voice-process a sender voice signal being input through a microphone,
a transmitting unit to filter the sender voice signal so as to be transmitted and to process it to be amplified,
a display unit to display the voice communication and the state of transmitting/receiving the text information,
a power drive circuit to supply the power of a power battery to each operation circuit terminal, and
a cover (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘preamble portion’)
the apparatus comprising:
a single emergency key button installed at an outer side of the mobile communication terminal as an emergency functional input unit to perform a functional input to notify an emergency situation occurring to a subscriber of the mobile communication terminal (hereinafter, referred to as a ‘constituent 1’),
a memory unit to store the information of a telephone number of an emergency contact place which the emergency situation is notified according to the functional input of the emergency functional input unit, and the emergency information having the notified contents of the emergency situation (hereinafter, referred to as a ‘constituent 2’),
a control unit to perform a call connection to the emergency contact place by running an emergency mode based on the functional input of the emergency functional input unit, to send the emergency information of the memory unit to the emergency contact place (hereinafter, referred to as a ‘constituent 3’), and to prohibit the receiving unit from receiving the receiver voice signal and to allow the transmitting unit to transmit the sender voice only, by running a tap mode according to an emergency signal sent from the emergency contact place (hereinafter, referred to as a ‘constituent 4’).
(2) Cited invention
The cited invention relates to a security method using a PHS (personal had phone system) terminal comprising:
an emergency detecting unit to detect a signal for notifying an emergency situation occurrence, whereby a user is able to immediately and accurately request a rescue by using a mobile phone when the user is in an emergency situation,
an automatic calling unit to automatically call to a predetermined contact place by adding the user’s telephone number by the operation of the emergency detecting unit, and
a sound collection instructing unit to instruct a transmitter to colle
|
