[2] The case holding that in comparison with a patented invention that limits the size of the person who entered the product and the cost of creating the product, the composition of the invention in question does not specify the size of the person who entered the product and the cost of creating the product as much as it can be determined whether it falls under the scope

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows as to whether the defendant's invention (hereinafter referred to as "the invention subject to confirmation") subject to the passive claim to confirm the scope of patent rights of the patented invention in this case (patent No. 96683) is specifically specified as compared to the patented invention in this case.

A. Claim No. 1 of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim No. 1 of this case") pertains to the ground-to-story (story) which is the floor material of the stadium, such as the tegrasium, 600 to 1500°C, in a heating channel with the temperature of 600 to 1500°C, in a mincation, mincation of the artificial embankings with the size of 0.05 to 98%, and 0.05mm and less than 2 to 10%, for artificial embankings with the capacity of 90-98%, and 0.3% through 40% of the total weight of 40 to 40% of the total grascing, composed of red bricks mixed with the shape of the stadium, etc. In contrast to this, the challenged invention subject to confirmation is an invention of 10-10% to 40% of the total weight of 10-10-40% of the yellow weight of the red stone.

B. The ingredients of the raw material of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, compared to yellow soil, are composed of red brick powder ingredients of the instant Claim No. 1 in comparison with yellow sand, since the ingredients of the red brick powder ingredients of the instant Claim No. 1 are "a stop and stop, stop and stop, stop and stop, stop and stop, stop, stop and stop, stop and stop, stop and stop, stop and stop, s tophers. The two components are identical. The ratio of raw materials to the two components and stop temperature are also the same. The red brick powder (stop) of the instant Claim No. 1 is 40 to 100 square meters, which are included within the border of the stop in the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

C. The zinite is a zinite mineral containing alinium and steel. The ginites of the invention subject to confirmation are the same as the zinites of the invention subject to paragraph (1) of this case, and the ginites of the ginites of which are not more than 0.005mm, and the ginites of which are not more than 0.05mm. The ginites of the ginites of which are less than 0.05mm. However, in the case of the invention of the ginites of which the ginites and formation expenses are limited as the invention of this case, it is possible to determine whether the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right by limiting the composition and formation expenses of the ginites of the invention subject to confirmation, and the ginites of the ginites of which are merely 1 through 20% of the g infinites of the ginites of this case.

D. Since tecoco with red bricks with the same size of 40 to 100 mersh of the invention in question cannot be different from the tecocococos in question. Thus, the above yellow soil cannot be deemed to be a component corresponding to the tecosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosccosculating the gap between the ecosccosccopers of the invention in question, the size of 05 to 5mm of the invention in question, and salt of the invention in question is merely a simple addition to the pipecosccosccosc

E. Therefore, the challenged invention cannot be said to be specified to the extent that it can be compared to the instant Claim No. 1 invention due to defects in the size and construction cost of the influent fluent tin.

3. In light of the above legal principles and records, the red brick powder and glart stone in the invention subject to confirmation shall not be different from the ground for appeal of this case 1 invention, and sulfur and salt in the invention subject to confirmation shall be separate from the ground for appeal of this case 1 invention, which is not corresponding to the ground for appeal. Thus, the composition of the invention subject to confirmation corresponding to the ground for appeal of this case 1 invention of this case 1 invention of this case shall be the ground for appeal of this case 1 invention of this case 1 invention of this case, which is limited to the size of the rash and development expenses, and in such a case, the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right for the invention of this case 1 invention of this case 1 invention of this case 1 invention of this case 1 of this case , since there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the size of the rash ground for appeal of this case - since the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of right for the invention of this case 1 invention of this case - invention of this case.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)