[거절사정][공1993.6.1.(945),1404]
The criteria for determining "the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge can easily conduct" under Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 3891 of Dec. 31, 1986)
Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 3891 of Dec. 31, 1986) refers to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the invention, based on the level of technology at the time of patent application, if he/she has an average technical ability in the art related to the invention (the party) based on the level of technology at the time of patent application, it refers to the extent that any person can clearly understand and reconstruct the content of the invention applied
Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 3891 of Dec. 31, 1986)
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 1992, Feb. 27, 1990, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Attorney Lee Dong-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90 Ba1892 dated May 30, 1992
The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below that the invention is an invention related to the refining of hydroids by dydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydyds.
However, "The extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily execute" in the above provision of the former Patent Act refers to the degree of understanding the content of the invention at the time of the patent application, and if the person (the party) has an average technical ability in the technical field related to the invention as at the time of the patent application, it refers to the extent that he can reproduce it (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu49 delivered on July 28, 1992). According to the records, the invention is defined in paragraph (1) of the above provision of the Patent Act as a solid absorption substance with a specific structural characteristics in paragraph (5) of the above article, which is subordinate to the above paragraph (5) again selected from a pure carbon-containing compound that leads to the heat decomposition of the natural hydrocarbon compound, and it is interpreted that the molecular structure in paragraph (8) of the above article, which is subordinate to the above paragraph (8), is not a combination selected from among those who have an ordinary skill in the technical field as at the time of the patent application, and it is not a combination with the above paragraph (5).
Therefore, the above judgment of the court below erred in interpreting the descriptions of patent specification and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for specification, thereby affecting the result of the trial decision. The argument is with merit.
Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)