한국 특허판례 100선(공직기강 판례 100선), 2015.2, 특허청
A. 발명의 성립성 및 산업상 이용가능성(11개) ·········································· 1
a1. 산업상 이용가능성 판단 시점 ······················································································ 3
a2. 자연법칙을 이용하지 않는 부분이 있는 경우의 발명의 성립성 여부 ······························· 4
a3. 이미지에 특징이 있는 교재의 발명의 성립성 여부 ························································ 5
a4. 미완성 발명의 판단기준 ······························································································ 6
a5. 미완성 발명의 구체적 사례 ························································································· 7
a6. 인체의 일부를 이용하는 경우 산업상 이용가능성 여부 ·················································· 8
a7. 의료행위 발명의 산업상 이용가능성 여부 ····································································· 9
a8. 영업방법 관련 발명의 성립성 판단기준 ······································································ 10
a9. 컴퓨터 프로그램 관련 발명의 성립성 유무 ·································································· 11
a10. 발명자가 되기 위하여 발명이 특허요건을 충족해야 하는지 여부 ································· 12
a11. 공동 발명자의 판단 기준 ························································································· 13
B. 신규성 및 진보성(37개) ······································································ 15
b1. 공지 여부 판단기준 ·································································································· 17
b2. 학위논문의 공지 시점 ······························································································· 18
b3. 기술이전 교육용 자료의 선행기술로 사용가능 여부 ····················································· 19
b4. 카탈로그의 공지 여부 ······························································································· 20
b5. 명세서에 기재된 종래기술의 선행기술로 사용가능 여부 ··············································· 21
b6. 설정등록되면 공지된 것인지 여부 ·············································································· 22
b7. 신규성 판단시 선행발명은 1개여야 하는지 여부 ·························································· 23
b8. 표현양식에 차이가 있는 경우 발명이 동일한지 여부 ··················································· 24
b9. 구성이 동일하면 효과도 동일하다고 볼 수 있는지 여부 ··············································· 25
b10. 용도가 다르다는 이유만으로 신규성이 인정되는지 여부 ············································· 26
b11. 진보성 판단시 통상의 기술자가 국내기준인지 여부 ··················································· 27
b12. 진보성에서 통상의 기술자 수준 ··············································································· 28
b13. 복수의 선행문헌을 인용하는 경우의 진보성 판단기준 ················································ 29
b14. 진보성 판단시 사후적 고찰 금지 ·············································································· 30
b15. 복수의 구성요소로 이루어진 발명의 진보성 판단방법 ················································ 31
b16. 진보성 판단시 명세서에 기재되지 않은 효과의 고려 가능 여부 ·································· 32
b17. 상업적 성공을 진보성 판단시 고려할 수 있는지 여부 ················································ 33
b18. 진보성 판단시 다른 기술분야의 선행기술 사용 가능 기준 ·········································· 34
b19. 제조방법 한정 물건 발명의 진보성 판단기준 ····························································· 35
b20. 수치한정 발명의 신규성 판단 기준 ··········································································· 36
b21. 수치한정발명의 진보성 판단 기준 ············································································ 37
b22. 수치한정발명의 진보성 판단시 임계적 의의를 입증하기 위한 자료의 추후 제출
허용 여부 ··············································································································· 38
b23. 수치한정발명에서 이질적 효과가 있는 경우 임계적 의의가 필요한지 여부 ··················· 39
b24. 선택발명의 진보성 판단시 효과의 현저성을 확인할 수 있는 자료가 최초 명세서에
기재되어 있어야 하는지 여부 ··················································································· 40
b25. 선택발명의 신규성 및 진보성 판단 기준 ··································································· 41
b26. 진보성 판단시 ‘포함하는’기재로 인한 발명의 특정범위 ·············································· 42
b27. 성질 또는 특성으로 특정된 발명의 진보성 판단방법 ·················································· 43
b28. 미완성 발명의 신규성？진보성 부정자료로 사용 가능 여부 ··········································· 44
b29. 주지관용기술에 해당하는지 여부 ·············································································· 45
b30. 주지관용기술의 차이라도 새로운 효과가 발생하는 경우 실질적으로 동일한지 여부 ······ 46
b31. 진보성 판단 시 소극적 구성의 고려 여부 ································································· 47
b32. 공지예외 주장시 밀접불가분 관계의 인정범위 ··························································· 48
b33. 박람회 출품의 공지예외 효력이 미치는······················································ 49
b34. 의사에 반한 공지 여부의 판단기준 ··········································································· 50
b35. 출원 전 공지 입증 목적으로 출원 후 작성된 자료의 사용가능 여부 ···························· 51
b36. 의약용도발명에서 투여량, 투여시기는 진보성 판단시 고려대상인지 여부 ····················· 52
b37. 의약용도가 약리기전으로 한정된 경우 약리기전은 진보성 판단시 고려대상인지 여부 ··· 53
C. 선원 및 확대된 선원(6개) ··································································· 55
c1. 선원에서의 발명의 동일성 판단 기준 ·········································································· 57
c2. 확대된 선원에서의 발명의 동일성 판단 기준 ······························································· 57
c3. 미완성발명이 선원 및 확대된 선원의 지위를 가지는지 여부 ········································· 59
c4. 공개 후 취하된 경우 선원의 지위 유지 여부 ······························································ 60
c5. 경합출원에서 등록된 어느 권리가 무효된 경우 남은 특허의 무효 여부 ························· 61
c6. 어느 하나의 특허권이 포기된 경우 남은 경합출원의 특허 무효 여부 ···························· 62
