[판례평석] 특허법원 2016.9.30. 선고 2016허1949 판결 특허무효심판 심결에 대한 취소소송

A Case Study Regarding Patent Court Case No. 2016HUR1949 for Invalidation of Korean Patent No. 1430546 Based on Inventive Step

When we determine inventive step of an invention, cited prior arts should be correct, which means that the prior arts should have the identical technical field with that of the subject invention. This is a difference between inventive step and novelty. In determining novelty, the cited prior arts encompass all kinds of technology because the novelty is determined by identity of both inventions. The subject invention relates to a coated yarn in which multi filament polyester is coated with PVC. The coated yarn is for fabric for blinder or floor fabric. The fabric has a drawback of fuzzing when installed. To solve the fuzzing problem, the subject invention was developed to use the multifilaments with low melting point and high shrinkage. D1 discloses a monofilament coated with PVC for guitar cord or tennis racket cord. D2 discloses a composite yarn (sea and island yarn). Neither D1 nor D2 has a drawback of fuzzing. How can the subject invention be invalidated as lack of inventive step in view of D1 over D2?