[거절사정(특)][공2000.1.15.(98),187]
[1] The description of the patent application specification
[2] Where the scope of a patent application is integrated or modified due to the amendment of the specification, but the detailed description of the invention has not been amended, and it is not possible to clearly understand the composition, combination, and effect of the description, whether the scope of a patent application is clearly supported by the detailed description of the invention (negative)
[3] Where a mistake is found in the technical composition or combination of the pertinent invention due to the drawings attached to the patent application, but the technical composition or combination of the pertinent drawings is not known due to the lack of indication of the relevant technical composition, whether the error is attributable to erroneous entry of the number of multiple drawings attached to the patent application, and where a person with ordinary skill in the relevant technical field reviewed the entire specification closely, whether the specification falls under the omission of entry in the specification even if he/she can know the technical composition (affirmative)
[1] Article 42 (2) 1 through 3 of the Patent Act provides that "the patent application shall be accompanied by the name of the invention", "the brief description of the drawings", "the detailed description of the invention", "the scope of the patent claim", and "the detailed description of the invention" shall include the purpose, composition, and effects of the invention so that the invention can easily be carried out by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains," and Article 42 (2) 3 of the Patent Act provides that the above "the scope of the patent claim" shall include only one or more provisions (the claim) stating the subject matter to be protected, and the claim shall be supported by "the detailed description of the invention", and if the invention is clearly and congested, it shall meet the requirements such as "the patent application shall be made only without the description of the invention so that a third party can easily understand the contents of the invention in the patent application and shall be understood as an average description to the extent that the patent application can not be easily understood by the description."
[2] Where the detailed description of the invention in support is not amended in accordance with the amendment of the specification, and the contents of the detailed description of the claims and the invention are inconsistent with each other, and it is not possible to clearly understand the composition, combination, and effect of the description by itself, the scope of claims shall not be deemed clearly supported by the detailed description of the invention.
[3] In a case where the technical composition, etc. of the pertinent invention is explained by the drawings attached to the application in the specification, and the relevant technical composition or combination cannot be known because the technical composition of the pertinent drawing pointed out in the specification is not indicated at all, it is due to erroneous entry of the number of several drawings attached to the application, and even if a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field can know the relevant technical composition, etc. through another drawings attached to the application after a thorough examination of the entire specification, it cannot be said that it is not an omission in the description of the relevant technical composition, etc.
[1] Article 42(2)1, 2, 3, (3), (4), and Article 62 subparag. 4 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 42(3), (4) of the Patent Act / [3] Article 42(3), (4) of the Patent Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu95 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2377), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1326 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2664), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2531 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2722), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2477 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1784) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1159 delivered on June 14, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2198)
Dengera flymickera flybly, a shower (Patent Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 96 Ba125 dated August 4, 1997
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 42 (2) 1 through 3 of the Patent Act provides that "the name of the invention", "a brief description of the drawing", "a detailed description of the invention", and "the scope of a patent claim" shall be attached to the specification, necessary drawings and abstract. Paragraph 3 provides that "the detailed description of the invention" must state the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily practice. Paragraph 4 provides that "the above "the scope of a patent claim" must state the matters to be protected at least 1 or 2, and the claim shall be supported by "the detailed description of the invention", "the claim shall be clearly and congested", and if the invention is not so described, it shall meet 97 (the patent application shall be stated only without being stated in the specification) and shall be stated in 97 (the patent application shall be understood to the extent that it can be understood to the extent that it can be easily known by a third party only by the specification, and shall be understood to the extent that it should be stated in the description 97.
In addition, since the detailed description of the invention in support of the description is inconsistent with each description of the claims and the invention's detailed description is not amended or modified accordingly, and the description alone is unable to clearly understand the composition, combination, and effect of the description, the claims shall not be deemed to be clearly supported by the detailed description. In addition, in cases where the description explains a specific technical composition, etc. of the invention based on the drawings attached to the application, if it is impossible to know the technical composition or combination of the drawings pointed out in the description because the drawings indicate the specific technical composition, etc. of the invention in question were not completely indicated in the drawings attached to the application, the scope of claims shall not be deemed to be clearly supported by the detailed description. Furthermore, even if a person with ordinary knowledge in the art can know the technical composition, etc. through another drawings attached to the application after a thorough examination of the entire description, it shall not be deemed to be lack of the description (see Supreme Court Decision 9Hu1595, Jun. 14, 1996).
2. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, since the summary of the invention in this case is divided into a different part of the transmission line connected to the Roman country and inserted it into such divided point, and the ordinary signal transmission line with "the method of detecting the condition of each such divided transmission line" is not "the method of detecting the condition of the above divided transmission line", as a result of checking the condition of the transmission line by the above "the method of inspection", at least one point is cut from the divided point of the transmission line and cut it from the above "the above Switzerland method" and if both are normal, it is not clear that the above "the above Switzerland method of transmission" is added to the "the method of specification" which is not "the initial method of request to cut the transmission line from the divided point of the claim," and it is not clearly stated in the 2nd paragraph "the above 2nd paragraph "the specification of the request to delete the above part" as an "the method of specification" and it is not clearly stated in the 2nd paragraph.
In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are not acceptable.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)