[등록무효(실)][공2003.10.1.(187),1972]
[1] The purpose of Article 8 (4) 1 of the former Utility Model Act and the standard for determining whether the scope of a request for registration of a utility model is supported by a detailed explanation of the proposal
[2] The case holding that the composition of a intelligence to be installed at a fixed axis of the intelligence is supported by a detailed description of the device in the registered device concerning the "building shutter"
[1] Article 8 (4) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of Sep. 23, 1998) provides that "the scope of a request for registration of a utility model under the provisions of paragraph (2) 4 shall include one or more claims stating the subject matter for which protection is sought (hereinafter referred to as "claim") in the scope of a request for registration of a utility model, and the claim shall fall under any of the following subparagraphs." Article 8 (1) of the former Utility Model Act provides that the claim shall be supported by the detailed description of the device. The purpose of this provision is to clarify the technical content and scope that a third party intends to have a utility model protected by the utility model right by disclosing the subject matter of the application for registration so that it can be easily known only by the specification. Thus, whether the scope of a request for registration of a utility model is supported by the detailed description of the device should be determined on the basis of the technical level at the time of the application for registration of the utility model, by combining the scope of the application for registration and the description and effect of each claim.
[2] The case holding that the composition of a intelligence set up at a fixed axis of the intelligence is supported by a detailed description of the device in the registered complaint concerning the "building shutter"
[1] Article 8(4)1 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 577 of September 23, 1998) (see current Article 9(4)1 of the former Utility Model Act) Article 32(1) (see current Article 49(1) of the former Utility Model Act) Article 8(4)1 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of September 23, 1998) (see current Article 9(4)1 of the former Utility Model Act) Article 32(1) of the former Utility Model Act (see current Article 49(1) of the former Utility Model 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), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2675 delivered on December 10, 199 (Gong200Sang, 187), Supreme Court Decision 200Hu32939 delivered on October 27, 2009 (Gong200, 187).
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Song Man-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Patent Court Decision 2001Heo5695 delivered on August 23, 2002
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
1. Summary of the judgment of the court below
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to whether paragraph 3 of this case is supported by the detailed explanation of the claim 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "registration number omitted) of the above 5 of the utility model (hereinafter referred to as the "registration 1 of this case"), the court below found that the scope of the right of paragraph 3 of this case does not extend to all the registered stoves that have been installed with stoves or stoves on the emergency surface of the building (hereinafter referred to as 5; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the stoves (5) that are installed on the 5th of the registered stoves by the 5th of the registered stoves and the 5th of the registered stoves and to the 5th of the registered stoves and to the 5th of the registered stoves and to the 5th of the registered stoves and to the 5th of the registered stoves and the 5th of the registered stoves.
2. The judgment of this Court
Article 8(4) of the former Utility Model Act provides that “The scope of a request for registration of a utility model under paragraph (2) 4 shall include one or more claims in which the subject matter for which protection is sought (hereinafter referred to as “claim”) shall fall under any of the following subparagraphs.” Article 8(4) of the former Utility Model Act provides that the claim shall be supported by the detailed description of the device. The purpose of this provision is to clarify the technical content and scope to be protected as a utility model right by disclosing the contents of the device for which the application for registration of a utility model was filed so that a third party can easily understand them only with the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2675 delivered on December 10, 199). Whether the scope of the request for registration of a utility model is supported by the detailed description of the device should be determined on the basis of the technical level at the time of the application for registration of the utility model from a person with an average technical ability in the technical field related to the device at the time of the application for registration of the utility model.
이 사건 등록고안에서 고정 축에 스토퍼를 설치하는 구성의 의미에 관하여 보건대, 이 사건 등록고안의 명세서를 보면, 이 사건 등록고안의 경첩(50)은, ㉠ 고정 축(51), ㉡ 고정 축(51)에 설치한 비틀림 스프링(52), ㉢ 양쪽 고정 편(53), ㉣ 스토퍼(55)를 구성요소로 포괄하는 부분임을 알 수 있으며, 그 등록청구범위 제3항에서는 '경첩의 고정 축에 비상문이 항상 닫힘 상태를 유지할 수 있도록 하는 스토퍼(를) … 설치한다.'고 기재되어 있고, 상세한 설명란에서는 '경첩(50)은 제2도 및 제3도와 같이 내측에 닫힘 각도를 제어하는 스토퍼(55)가 마련되고 …'라고 기재되어 있으며, 이와 같은 기재 내용에다가 그 첨부 도면 제3, 4도에서 스토퍼에 해당하는 도면번호 '55'가 가리키는 부분(특히 제3도에서 도면번호 '55'가 지시하는, 같은 간격·방향의 해칭선으로 표시한 부분) 및 이 사건 등록고안의 출원 당시 널리 사용된 경첩은 두 장의 판을 연결 링에 의하여 축에 회전 가능하도록 결합한 것을 기본 구성으로 하는 점 등 기록에 나타난 그 당시의 경첩의 구조에 관한 기술 수준을 종합적으로 고려하면, 그 고안이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람에게는 이 사건 등록고안의 청구항 제3항 및 그 명세서의 상세한 설명란과 첨부 도면에서 말하는 스토퍼는 한 쪽 고정 편에서 다른 고정 편 쪽으로 연장 돌출한 부분뿐만 아니라, 그 고정 편을 고정 축과 연결하는 연결 링 부분도 포함함으로써 연결 링 부분에 의하여 고정 축에 설치되어 있는, 한 쪽 고정 편의 끝 부분을 가리키는 구성으로 이해될 수 있다고 보이고, 따라서 이 사건 등록고안의 청구항 제3항 중에서 경첩의 고정 축에 스토퍼가 설치되는 구성은 이에 대응되는 사항이 그 고안의 상세한 설명과 첨부 도면에 기재되어 있어 고안의 상세한 설명에 의하여 뒷받침된다고 볼 수 있다.
Nevertheless, the court below held that, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, claim 3 of the registered complaint of this case is not supported by the detailed explanation of the device, the composition of the intelligence to be installed at a fixed axis of the intelligence. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the composition of the Stotofer specified in the specification of the registered complaint of this case, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the method of recording the scope of a request for registration of a utility model under Article 8 (4) 1 of the former Utility Model Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)