(b) The case holding that although the contents of "the scope of the patent claim" are somewhat vague, it is difficult to deem that they are contrary to Article 8 (4) of the same Act;

(b) The case holding that, on the ground that the entire transmission, cutting, and supply system, composed of the combinations of each component, can be seen as falling under the summary of the applied invention, the entries in the “scope of a patent claim”, which describe a mutually combined relationship among many components of the entire system, may somewhat be somewhat neglected, but it is difficult to view that the contents in the “scope of a patent claim” are contrary to Article 8(4) of the same Act.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

1. Of the detailed text matter in the patent application specification of the original invention of this case filed on December 8, 1987 and rendered a ruling of November 16, 1990, the lower court determined that: (a) the composition and operation of the first (33) and the tape division (34) (36) (the tape division) are installed; and (b) the second (71) is written in the Rod (72) (the Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Ro (73) (74), the organization and operation connected to the Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s Rod’s 333) are unclear and insufficient to indicate the composition of the drawings.

2. According to Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 190), the term "detailed description of the invention" to be entered in the specification to be accompanied by a patent application shall include the purpose, composition, action, and effect of the invention so that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the patent application. According to Article 8(4) of the same Act, the term "the scope of a patent claim" to be entered in the specification shall clearly and concisely state the subject of protection in one or more cases, among the matters described in the specification. The purport of such provision is to clarify the technical scope by publishing the contents of the invention to a third party and to clarify the technical scope. The term "the extent that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the patent application. If a person has an average technical ability in the art to which the invention pertains, it is necessary to clearly understand the contents of the invention at the time of patent application, and it shall be understood that it belongs to 485 years after declaration of technology.

In this case, according to the records, the "detailed description of the invention" and "a simple description of the drawings" recorded in the 3th description of the patent application with the description and the subsequent description and the 3th description of the "exploiting tape" are not stated (i) the combination of the above 36) and the 3rd code (34), but also the combination of the 3rd code of technology and the 3rd code of technology so that it is difficult to understand the mutual relation and effects of the 7th code of technology and the 7th code of equipment connected to the 3rd code of technology (see, e.g., the 7th code of equipment) and the 7th code of equipment to be delivered by the 3rd code of equipment to the 3rd code of technology, and it is hard to see that the 17th code of equipment and the 3th code of equipment are combined with the 7th code of equipment and equipment to be delivered to the 3th code of equipment and operation (see, e.g. the 7th code of equipment).

Nevertheless, the court below held that the original invention is not patentable under Article 8(3) and (4) of the former Patent Act for the same reason as the judgment of the court below. Thus, the original decision does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the descriptions of the specification to be submitted along with the patent application or failing to properly conduct a hearing, and it is clear that such illegality has affected the trial decision. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the case shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)