B. Whether the scope of a patent claim is lawful where the scope thereof is duplicate

B. Even if the contents of the same invention idea differ and overlap each other, if the scope of the patent claim is clearly and concisely stated, and if a person with ordinary knowledge in the art concerned can reproduce it with a clear understanding and understanding, the description is legitimate.

(1) According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below that the scope of the patent claim of this case stated in Paragraph (2) of the "the method of manufacturing the integrated circuits with the characteristics of which the materials of the window surfurd floor (23) are selected from groups composed of TiN, ordinary cargo, poly-mixeds and poly-surdys" and Paragraph (3) of this Article "in paragraph (1), the above window surfd floor (23) is "the method of manufacturing the integrated circuits with the characteristics of which the above window surfurd floor (23) includes poly-N" and Paragraph (5) is "the method of manufacturing the integrated circuits with the characteristics of which the above window surfd floor (23) includes TiN" and since the scope mentioned in paragraphs (3) and (5) above are included in the above Paragraph (2) and therefore the invention of this case is substantially the same and the specification and drawings of this case are not identical and thus rejected by the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 48407 of January 13, 199).

(2) However, according to Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act, the detailed description of the invention shall state the purpose, composition, function, and effect of the invention to the extent that the invention can easily be carried out by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains. According to Article 8(4), the scope of a patent claim shall clearly and concisely state the subject matter in the specification in one or more paragraphs. The purport of such provision is to clarify the technical scope by publishing the subject matter in the patent application to a third party and clarify the technical scope. Thus, if a person has an average technical ability in the technical field related to the invention based on the technical level at the time of the patent application, it would suffice if the person clearly understand the subject matter of the invention and has an indication to the extent that it can be reproduced (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu49, Jul. 28, 1992). Even if the same invention contains a different description of claims in duplicate, if it clearly and clearly states the scope of the patent claim, and if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can clearly understand the description.

Therefore, the decision of the court below on the premise that the overlapping scope of a patent claim with the same content constitutes a lack of specification is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of description of claims, and it is clear that such illegality has affected the result of the decision. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

(3) Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)