2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff’s filing invention

(a) Invention name: High data radar Ropets (HIGH DATR RoTE INFACE);

(ii) the international filing date (priority date)/Divided filing date/Patent Application Number: October 15, 2004 ( October 15, 2003)/ May 30, 2008 (Application Number omitted).

3) Claims and drawings: as shown in the attached Form.

B. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On June 16, 2008, with respect to the Plaintiff’s patent application for the patent application, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the submission of the opinion (hereinafter “the notice of submission of the opinion of this case”) on the ground that “each codes listed in the patent application invention of this case in paragraph (8) are not indicated in the detailed description of the invention, and not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and the patent application invention of this case in Articles 9 and 10 are subordinate claims of the patent application invention of this case, and contain any omission in the description of the patent application invention of this case in the patent application invention of this case.”

2) The Plaintiff submitted his written opinion on October 13, 2008. However, on February 13, 2009, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection (hereinafter “the decision of rejection of this case”) on the ground that “the code, etc. to be decided on the status of the transmitted pulse” in the patent application invention of this case is not explicitly indicated in the detailed explanation, and in particular, the patent application invention of this case did not completely appear in the detailed explanation that it is decided on the basis of delay in the construction of the Ruld with the reverse direction marked “sar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar dar e., June 16, 2008.”

3) On May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a petition for trial against the instant decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted a written amendment to add the matters indicated in the patent claim of the instant Claim No. 8 (hereinafter “instant amendment”). On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted a written amendment to add the said Claim No. 1 to the detailed description as it is. The invention prior to the amendment, “the instant amendment invention”, “the instant Claim No. 1”, “the instant amendment invention,” and the individual claim No. 1 invention “the instant amendment invention” or “the instant Claim No. 1 invention,” etc.

4) On June 25, 2009, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to dismiss the amendment (hereinafter “the decision to dismiss the amendment of this case”) on the ground that “the amendment of this case cannot be deemed to be the content stated in the initial patent application as of May 30, 2008, and it is not an obvious fact to the party concerned, and it constitutes an addition of new matters, and thus constitutes a violation of Article 47(2) of the Patent Act,” and notified the results of the examination of the application before the examination maintaining the original decision on the same day.

5) Meanwhile, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s trial decision of this case on the ground that “Although the instant amendment does not constitute a new description addition, the code in the composition of the instant amendment invention is not supported by the detailed description of the amended invention, the amendment invention of Articles 9 and 10 is also a subordinate invention that directly or indirectly shapes or limits the amendment invention of Article 8 of this case, and thus, it cannot be patentable at the time of patent application because the patent application is not supported by the detailed description of the invention. Even if the invention of this case is re-examined into the claim of this case at the time of the decision of rejection, the rejection of the instant amendment is justifiable, and even if it is re-examined into the claim of this case at the time of the decision of rejection, the decision of rejection of the instant amendment is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and thus, the instant decision of rejection is justifiable.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff

The amended invention of this case is supported by the detailed description of the invention. Thus, the amendment of this case is legitimate, and the decision of this case, which is otherwise determined, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Defendant

In the composition of the amendment invention of Paragraph 8 of this case, the "a code that enables the determination of the status of the transmitted pulse" is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and the amendment invention of Articles 9 and 10 of this case also is also the subordinate type of the invention that directly or indirectly shapes or limits the amendment invention of Paragraph 8 of this case, and it is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and therefore the amendment invention of Articles 8 through 10 of this case cannot be patented at the time of filing a patent application. Thus, the decision to dismiss the amendment of this case is justified.

In addition, even according to the specification prior to the amendment of the instant case, the patent application invention of Articles 8 through 10 of the instant case is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and thus, the instant decision of refusal is also justifiable.

Therefore, the trial decision of this case, which is concluded with this conclusion, is legitimate.

3. Whether the decision to dismiss the amendment of this case is legitimate

A. Legal doctrine

According to Articles 173, 174(1), 51(1), and 47(1)3, and 47(4)2 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 9381, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Patent Act”), an examiner shall reject an amendment by decision if the amendment does not meet the above requirements. The purport of Article 47(4)2 of the former Patent Act is to ensure prompt examination of the grounds for rejection newly established by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and to ensure prompt amendment of the specification or drawings in filing a petition for an appeal against a decision of rejection. Accordingly, Article 47(1)3 and 47(4)2 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 971, Apr. 2, 2007; hereinafter “former Patent Act”) is to ensure prompt amendment of the amended patent application, without notifying the new grounds for rejection, to the extent that the new grounds for rejection was rejected by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office prior to the amendment.

Article 42(4)1 of the former Patent Act provides that a claim(s) shall be supported by a detailed description of the invention. The purport of Article 42(4)1 of the same Act is to prevent an unreasonable result of grant of a patent right to an invention not disclosed to the applicant by entering matters not described in the detailed description of the invention attached to the patent application in a claim. Thus, whether a claim is supported by a detailed description of the invention should be determined by whether the matters corresponding to the claim(s) from the ordinary technician’s position on the basis of the technological level at the time of the patent application are described in the detailed description of the invention (Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2582 Decided October 13, 201).

B. Whether the amendment invention of Paragraph 8 of this case is supported by the detailed description of the invention

1) Composition of the amended invention under Paragraph 8 of this case

The amendment invention of Paragraph 8 of this case contains "the code that enables sampling of reverse direction data within the upper drack digital type (MDI) system, the code that allows drack-off delay measurement strawet to be transmitted from hrack to cracker, the code that allows drackk-off measurement method to be transmitted from hacket to hacker, the code that allows hackk-off measurement method to be transmitted to hacker by hacker, the code that allows hackk-off measurement delay measurement method to be measured, the code that determines the upper part of the transmitted pack, the code that allows collection of data to be decided on the basis of the reverse direction of the measured RDI system."

Inasmuch as there is a dispute between the parties as to whether “the code to determine the status of the transmitted pulse” among the elements of the amendment of Paragraph 8 of this case is supported by the detailed description of the invention, this part is limited to this part, and it is determined whether it is supported by the detailed description of the invention.

(ii)whether the invention is supported by a detailed description;

The detailed description of the invention related to the amended invention of Paragraph 8 of this case is indicated as “the code (3,5, 3) to be determined by the upper status of the transmitted pulse,” and the detailed description of the invention is written as “the code to be determined by the upper status of the transmitted pulse” (3,5, 3). The detailed description of the amended invention of this case also contains the same description as the amended invention of Paragraph 8 of this case.

뿐만 아니라, ① 갑 제3, 4, 6호증, 을 제8호증에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 인터넷 다음 백과사전에는 위상(위상, phase)을, “반복되는 파형의 한 주기에서 첫 시작점의 각도 혹은 어느 한 순간의 위치”로 소개하고 있고, 인터넷 네이버 지식사전에는 위상에 대해 “이와 같은 파형의 1단위를 ‘1주기’라 한다. 파형의 1주기에 관해서 0도에서 360도까지로 주소를 붙여주는데 이것을 위상각이라 한다. (중략) 또한 위상의 지연과 시간의 지연이 혼동되어 사용하기도 한다. 양쪽 모두 같은 ‘시간지연’이지만 ‘딜레이’와 같은 ‘시간지연’의 경우 모든 주파수의 신호는 10ms라면 10ms의 일정 시간이 지연된다. 예를 들어 같은 180의 지연이라도 신호의 주파수가 1khz라면(1khz의 1주기는 1ms이고, 그 반이므로) 0.5ms의 지연이 생기고 주파수가 100Hz라면(1주기는 10ms이므로) 지연은 5ms가 된다. 즉, 위상의 지연에서 생기는 시간지연은 대상이 되는 신호의 주파수에 따라 변하게 된다”고 기재되어 있으며, 전기·전자공학의 기본과목 교재로 사용되는 ‘회로이론’이란 서적에는 “주파수가 같은 두 파형 사이의 위상각은 어떤 시간차를 나타낸다. 예를 들어 그림 15-12(그림은 표시를 생략한다)에서는 파형 C가 파형 D에 60°의 위상각만큼 앞서고 있다. 두 파형의 주파수는 120Hz로 같다. 그러면 두 파형의 주기 T는 1/120초이다. 60°가 1사이클에 해당하는 각도인 360°의 1/6이므로 60°는 시간에 대해서는 1주기(=1/120초)의 1/6을 나타낸다. 따라서 60°의 위상각에 해당하는 시간은 1/6×1/120=1/720초가 된다. 파형 C보다 60°만큼 뒤진 파형 D는 시간상으로는 1/720초만큼 늦은 것이 된다. 결국 60° 위상지연은 1/720초 시간지연과 같다. 다음 식을 사용하면 위상각 θ를 시간으로 환산할 수 있다. t=θ/360×1/f 여기서 f의 단위는 Hz, θ의 단위는 °, t의 단위는 s이다”(갑 제4호증 522면 참조)고 기재되어 있고, 역시 전기·전자공학의 기본과목 교재로 사용되는 ‘알기 쉬운 회로이론’이란 제목의 서적에는 “일반적으로 사인파는 v = Vmsin[(ωt+θ] (6.7)와 같이 표시된다. 이 θ를 위상 또는 위상각이라 한다. 식(6.7)로부터 알 수 있는 바와 같이 사인파는 진폭 Vm, 각주파수 w, 위상각 θ의 세 양으로써 완전히 규정된다. (중략) 식(6.7)을 바꿔 쓰면 v = Vmsin[(ω(t+θ/w)] (6.8) 이 식을 보면 위상각 θ rad은 시간적으로는 θ/ω sec 또는 θ/2π×Ts에 해당함을 알 수 있다”(갑 제6호증 100, 101면)고 기재되어 있는바, 위 각 기재에 의하면, 당해 기술분야에서 펄스의 시간지연을 위상으로 나타내는 것이나 위상과 지연시간과의 관계식은 전기·전자공학의 교과서 등에 수록될 만큼 널리 알려진 기술상식임을 알 수 있는 점, ② 이 사건 제8항 보정발명에서 ‘전송된 펄스의 위상’이라 함은 일반적으로 ‘전송된 펄스의 상대적 위치’를 의미하는데, 이 사건 제8항 보정발명은 ‘펄스의 지연을 측정하여 역방향 데이터를 샘플링하기 시작하는 시간이 결정되도록 하는 코드’를 발명의 내용으로 하는 것으로서, ‘전송된 펄스를 검출함으로써 MDDI 시스템의 라운드 트립 지연이 측정되도록 하는 코드’라는 단계 다음에 ‘전송된 펄스의 위상이 결정되도록 하는 코드’라고 기재되어 있으므로, 통상의 기술자라면, 이 사건 제8항 보정발명에서 ‘전송된 펄스의 위상이 결정된다’는 의미를 ‘라운드 트립 지연 측정에 의한 지연시간에 의해 펄스의 위상이 결정된다’는 의미로 명확하게 인식할 수 있는 점, ③ 이 사건 보정발명의 상세한 설명에는, “클라이언트로 트래벌싱(traversing) 하고 클라이언트로부터 트래벌싱하는 신호에 대한 라운드 트립 지연시간을 정확하게 결정하기 위하여, 호스트는, 0xff, 0xff 및 30 바이트의 0x0 시퀀스의 시작이 도착 후에 검출될 때까지 측정 주기의 개시 이후에 생성하는 순방향 링크 비트 시간 주기의 수를 카운팅한다. 이 정보는 호스트로부터 클라이언트로 통과시키고 다시 되통과시키기 위해 라운드 트립 신호에 대한 시간 양을 결정하기 위해 이용된다. 그 후, 이 양의 대략 반은, 클라이언트로의 신호의 일방 통로에 대하여 생성된 지연이라고 생각된다”(갑 제2호증의 1, 378-87면 식별번호 222 및 378-306면 도 35 참조)고 기재되어 있어 이 사건 제8항 보정발명은 호스트에서 클라이언트까지의 지연과 클라이언트에서 호스트까지의 지연이 동일함을 전제로 하고 있는 점 등을 종합해 보면, 통상의 기술자라면 이 사건 제8항 보정발명에서 ‘전송된 펄스의 위상을 결정한다’는 의미를 ‘클라이언트에서 호스트로 전송된 펄스의 위상을 측정 주기가 시작되는 시점으로부터 라운드 트립 지연의 절반에 해당하는 크기의 지연으로 결정하는 것’으로 명확하게 이해할 수 있다.

나아가 이 사건 제8항 보정발명의 ‘전송된 펄스의 위상을 결정’하기 위하여 특별한 기술이 필요한지 여부에 대하여도 보면, 이 사건 보정발명의 상세한 설명에는 “도 51 에서, 응답 시퀀스는 지연 카운트가 6 으로부터 7로 증가시키려 하기 전에 순방향 링크 클록 기간의 부분을 클라이언트로부터 수신한다. 지연이 6일 것으로 추측되면, 호스트는 비트 변환 직후에 또는 가능하게는 비트 변환 중에 역방향 데이터를 샘플링할 것이다. 이 카운트는 호스트에서의 잘못된 샘플링을 초래할 수 있다. 이러한 이유로, 측정된 지연은 통상적으로 역방향 데이트 디바이저를 계산하는데 이용되기 전에 1씩 증가해야 한다. 역방향 링크 디바이저는 호스트가 역방향 링크 데이터를 샘플링하기 전에 기다려야 하는 MDDI_Stb 사이클의 수이다. MDDI_Stb가 순방향 링크 레이트의 절반의 레이트로 사이클 되기 때문에, 발생된 라운드 트립 지연 측정은 2에 의해 나누어져야 하며, 그 후 다음 정수로 된다. 식으로 표현하면, 그 관계는 이다. 주어진 실시예에서 이는 이다. 본 실시예에서 이용된 라운드 트립 지연 측정이 6에 반대되게 7인 경우, 역방향 레이트 디바이저는 또한 4일 것이다. (중략) MDDI_Stb 신호가 순방향 링크 레이트의 절반에서 토글링하기 때문에, 역방향 링크 레이트는 역방향 레이트 제수에 의해 나누어진 순방향 링크 레이트의 절반이다. 예를 들어, 순방향 링크 레이트가 200Mbps이고, 역방향 레이트 디바이저가 4인 경우, 역방향 링크 데이터 레이트는 : 와 같이 표현된다”(갑 제2호증의 1, 378-193면 식별번호 575 ~ 378-195면 식별번호 584 및 도 51, 52 참조)고 기재되어 있는바, 앞서 본 바와 같이 ‘전송된 펄스의 위상’은 펄스가 딜레이 되는 시간에 의해 결정되는 값이므로, 순방향 링크 레이트 200Mbps, 측정된 라운드 트립 지연 카운트 6을 고려하면, 클라이언트에서 호스트로 전송된 펄스의 지연시간은 1/(200Mbps)×6/2 = 15㎱임을 알 수 있고, 펄스의 시간지연과 위상의 관계식이 θ=360×f×t, θ=360×t/T, θ=2πft, θ=2π(t/T), θ=wt(θ=위상, f=1/T=주파수, w=2πf=각 주파수, T=주기, t=지연시간)임은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 통상의 기술자라면 상세한 설명에 별도의 명시적인 기재가 없더라도 위 공식 θ=2πft의 ‘f’에 역방향 링크 데이터 레이트 ‘25Mbps’를, ‘t’에 지연시간 ‘15ns’를 간단히 대입함으로써 전송된 펄스의 위상 135°(=360×25Mbps×15ns)를 산출해 낼 수 있다.

As a result, the phrase “a code that determines the status of the transmitted pulse” in the composition of the amendment invention of Paragraph 8 of this case includes the same contents in the detailed description of the invention, and even though the meaning that the status of the transmitted pulse is determined, or the method of determining the status of the transmitted pulse is not expressly stated in the detailed description, if an ordinary technician is a person, he can sufficiently understand it from other contents of the detailed description or the technological formula at the time of the application, so the amendment invention of Paragraph 8 of this case is supported by the detailed description of the invention.

C. Whether the amendment invention of the Nos. 9 and 10 of the instant case is supported by the detailed description of the invention

The amendment invention of the instant Nos. 9 and 10 is a subordinate invention citing the amendment invention of the instant Claim 8 or the amendment invention of the instant Claim 9, and as long as the amendment invention of the instant Claim 8 is supported by the detailed description of the invention, the amendment invention of the instant Claim 9 and 10 is supported by the detailed description of the invention.

D. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) First, the Defendant asserts that the amendment of Articles 8 through 10 of the Patent Act does not clearly and clearly state the details of the invention in accordance with the method of entry determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy so that ordinary technicians may easily practice the invention. Thus, the amendment of the Patent Act violates Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act. The Defendant asserts that the amendment of the Patent Act does not meet the requirement of correction that the matters described in the patent application after the amendment will be patentable at

As seen earlier, the decision to dismiss an amendment under Article 47(4)2 of the former Patent Act is not applied where a patent applicant is already stated in the scope of a patent prior to the amendment in accordance with the purport of the notification of grounds for rejection under Article 63 of the former Patent Act, which intends to guarantee procedural interests of the patent applicant, and the patent applicant is not notified of the grounds for rejection thereof, and it is applied only where the amended claims have still failed to resolve the grounds for rejection notified, and where the notified grounds for rejection have been removed, but a new ground for rejection has arisen due

In this case, the above reasons for the defendant's assertion are the matters that had already been stated in the claims prior to the amendment of this case, and are not notified in the notice of submission of the opinion or the decision of refusal as the grounds for rejection, and thus, the correction cannot be dismissed. Therefore, the defendant's argument in this part is without merit.

2) Second, the defendant asserts that the detailed description corresponding to the amendment invention of this case is merely a mere reproduction of the matters set forth in the claim(s) and there is no indication of the method in which the code to determine the status of the transmitted pulse is determined, there is no explanation in support as to whether the status of the determined pulse has any combined relation with the delay in construction, and as a result, there is no description of the effects that can be gained from such combination, and therefore, it is not supported by the detailed description of the invention.

(2) As seen earlier, the technical significance of determining the status of pulse transmitted in the instant Claim 8 invention or the specific method of determining the above aspect can be clearly understood by the ordinary technician, or by the technological formula at the time of the filing of the application, even though the detailed description of the instant invention is not explicitly indicated in the amended invention, as it does not include any description of the detailed description of the instant invention, or by adding any code to the code to determine the status of pulse which is transmitted subsequent to the code measuring delay in the instant Claim 8, so that it would be difficult to determine the content of the instant Claim 8 invention with the content of the instant Claim 8 invention with the content of the amended code which would be delayed on the basis of the measurement of delay in construction, and the content of the instant Claim 8 invention with the content of Paragraph 9 and Paragraph 10 of the instant amendment invention with the content of Paragraph 8 of the instant case, the amendment invention with the content of Paragraph 9 of the amended code, which would include the “the amendment code,” which provides for “the amendment invention with the content of Paragraph 9 of the amendment.”.

3) Third, the Defendant asserts that the “exploited pulse determination” of the amendment invention of Paragraph 8 of this case is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, because it is unclear whether the “continited pulse determination” of the amendment invention of this case is the status of the arrival time of pulse construction delay, whether it is the delay of transmission of the reverse direction link, the delay of transmission of the reverse direction-setting link sampling cycle, and the delay of the reverse direction-setting sampling, and thus, it is not supported by the detailed description of the invention.

살피건대, 앞서 본 바와 같이, 펄스의 시간지연과 위상 관계식은 θ=wt, w=2πf(θ=위상, f=1/T=주파수, T=주기, t=지연시간)로 나타낼 수 있는바, 전송된 펄스의 위상을 결정하기 위해서는 전송된 데이터의 주파수 f 및 지연시간이 필수적으로 요구된다. 그런데 이 사건 보정발명의 상세한 설명에는 앞서 본 바와 같이, 순방향 링크 클록에 의한 라운드 트립 지연 카운트를 이용하여 역방향 레이트 디바이저를 계산하고, 순방향 링크 레이트 및 역방향 레이트 디바이저를 이용하여 역방향 링크 데이터 레이트를 계산하며, 역방향 전송 지연시간은 라운드 트립 지연시간의 절반(클라이언트에서 호스트까지의 지연은 라운드 트립 지연 카운트의 절반에 해당)에 해당함을 명시하고 있는 등 상세한 설명에는 일관되게 역방향 링크 데이터 레이트 및 역방향 전송 지연시간을 산출하는 기술 구성을 개시하고 있다. 또한 이 사건 제8 내지 10항 보정발명은 전송된 펄스의 위상을 결정하는 코드를 포함하는 오프셋을 부가하여 ‘역방향 데이터를 샘플링하기 시작하는 시간이 결정’되도록 하기 위한 것이므로 이 사건 제8항 보정발명의 ‘전송된 펄스의 위상 결정’이 역방향 링크 데이트 레이트를 기준으로 역방향 전송 지연시간을 산출하고(다만, 역방향 전송 지연시간을 산출하기 위한 라운드 트립 지연 측정은 순방향 클록을 기준으로 한다) 그에 대한 위상을 결정하는 것을 의미한다는 것은 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 알 수 있다. 그리고 이와 같이 산출된 역방향 링크 데이터 레이트 및 역방향 전송 지연시간을 단지 일반적인 펄스의 시간지연과 위상과의 관계식에 대입하면, 이 사건 제8항 보정발명의 전송된 펄스의 위상을 산출할 수 있다. 결국, 이 사건 제8항 발명의 위상은 역방향 링크 샘플링 주기에 대한 펄스의 단방향(클라이언트에서 호스트까지) 전송 지연의 위상을 결정하기 위한 것으로 명확히 이해될 수 있으므로, 피고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

In addition, the defendant asserts to the effect that the upper value calculated by the plaintiff is not clearly understood or easily calculated with respect to ordinary technicians, because, when the upper value of the Round delayed Round (net Round Round) changes, the lower value of the Round is changed, and the upper value calculated accordingly, it is difficult to accept the defendant's allegation that the Round Round measurement and reverse direction-setting Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round was expressed and operated from the perspective of the actual clean period unit rather than the number of Round transmitted or received, so it is difficult to recognize the same direction-setting of the Round Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Rod Ka.

4) Fourth, the Defendant asserts that the detailed description of the instant amendment invention is based on the number of hours for delay in the fixed number determined at the intervals of clocks, and that the technical idea that sets up the reverse direction link darba meter by using the calculated result as the delayed time is open to the public, and that the technical idea or technical composition measuring the “defaction” corresponding to the difference between the permissible time of arrival of the clocks transmitted from the base time of the clocks is not disclosed.

On the other hand, the detailed description of the amendment invention of this case has consistently started with the formation of technology that derives from the reverse direction link data radar and reverse direction transmission delay time, and if the reverse direction data links and reverse direction transmission delay time resulting therefrom are compared to the relation formula between puls time delay and the upper part widely known in the relevant technical field, in case where the ccalcule is 6, it can be calculated under the above 135∑ of puls transmitted by the amendment invention of this case. Thus, even if the specific method of the decision does not specify in the specification, it can not be seen as having been clearly recognizable by the ordinary technician in light of other contents of the detailed description and the technological level at the time of the application, it is difficult to accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

5) Fifth, the Defendant asserts that, in the instant Claim 9’s “a code to determine the time to start sampling of reverse direction data,” there is no indication of the detailed description of the time to start sampling, “the meaning of Laos”, “standards to add Laos”, “the relationship with the upper world”, etc., and that, in the instant Claim 10’s amendment, the code that causes the addition of Laos includes the code that determines the status of the transmitted pulse,” the Plaintiff’s claim does not include any description of the relationship with the addition of the offs and the effect of the sampling is not supported by the detailed description.

However, the above grounds for the defendant's assertion are related to the matters already stated in the claims prior to the amendment of this case, and they do not serve as the grounds for rejection in the notice of submission of the opinion or decision of refusal of this case. Thus, the amendment of this case cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the above grounds.

The defendant asserts that the above reasons are consistent with the grounds for rejection notified by the plaintiff, so it can be viewed as the grounds for rejection notified in the notice of submission of the opinion in this case or the decision of rejection, and that the amendment in this case was unlawful since the amendment in this case did not resolve the grounds for rejection.

(2) As seen earlier, the grounds for rejection of the notice of rejection or decision of rejection of the instant Claim No. 8 are as follows: ① the code that determines the status of pulse transmitted to the instant Claim No. 8 is not explicitly indicated in the detailed explanation; ② it is not supported by the detailed explanation of the instant Claim No. 9 and No. 10 in the instant Claim No. 9 and No. 10, which include the grounds for rejection in the instant Claim No. 8 Claim No. 9 in the instant Claim No. 9 Claim No. 9 Claim No. 2 in the instant Claim No. 9 Claim No. 3, which is not clearly indicated in the instant Claim No. 6, in the instant Claim No. 4, in the instant Claim No. 9 Claim No. 3, the grounds for rejection of the instant Claim No.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s ground for non-performance of new description in the instant trial decision regarding the amended invention Nos. 9 and 10 of the instant case is about the matters set forth in the patent claim prior to the amendment of the instant case, and the patent applicant is not notified of the grounds for rejection thereof, and thus, it cannot be asserted as the ground for rejection of amendment.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the amendment invention of this case is supported by the detailed description of the invention, and the matters described in the claim can be patented at the time of filing a patent application after the amendment. Thus, the rejection decision of the amendment of this case and the decision of rejection of this case are unlawful.

4. Conclusion

If so, the trial decision of this case, which different conclusion, is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision is justified.

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)