초록 close

A person who decides patentability of an invention must essentially and beforehand understand the invention. However, unfortunately, after the understanding, the decider cannot be free from hindsight bias. A proclaim against the decider that such hindsight is not allowed normally does not make an effective result. This paper investigates real cases where an applicant or a patentee showed objective evidences and patentability was admitted. Through such case study, we may learn the way to proclaim hindsight and hopefully may utilize the way in future similar cases. Investigating eight real cases, this paper concludes that: (1) various explicit, negative expressions can be basis of hindsight proclaims, (2) implicit expressions or conventional wisdom of prior art, etc. can also be basis of hindsight proclaims, (3) proclaim of hindsight can be applied in novelty determinations as well, and (4) a prior art must not be altered in novelty determinations. If an applicant or a patentee provides such evidence of hindsight or teaching-away, relevant inventions must be presumed to have patentability.