[거절사정(특)][공2002.1.1.(145),102]
[1] The degree of "a detailed description of the invention" in the patent application specification
[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the detailed description of the invention described in the patent application for pharmaceutical products could not be easily executed by the party to the case
[1] Under Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990), "the detailed description of the invention" to be entered in the specification to be submitted along with a patent application shall state the purpose, composition, action, and effect of the invention so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement it. "The extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement it" is defined as "the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily conduct it" as stated in the specification. Thus, if the specification of the patent application fails to meet the above requirements, it shall be defined as a ground for rejection under Article 8 (1) 1 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990).
[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the detailed description of the invention described in the patent application for pharmaceutical products could not be easily executed by the party to the case
[1] Articles 8(3) (see current Article 42(3) and 82(1)1 (see current Article 62 subparag. 4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Articles 8(3) (see current Article 42(3)) and 82(1)1 (see current Article 62 subparag. 4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Hu53 delivered on June 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1287), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu654 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2810), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu95 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2377), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1326 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2664), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2531 delivered on July 25, 197 (Gong197Ha, 2722), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu24799 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong197Ha, 297, 197Ha and 1979).
Bangladesh Group Lid (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Patent Court Decision 98Heo10796 delivered on August 19, 199
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
Pursuant to Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the "former Patent Act"), "the detailed description of the invention to be entered in the specification to be submitted along with the patent application shall state the purpose, structure, effect, and effect of the invention so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily implement the invention." Under the provision, "the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily implement the invention" means a person with ordinary technical knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains, an average engineer (hereinafter referred to as "party") can understand the invention as at the time of application by considering the technical level at the time of application, and at the same time, it means the extent that the invention can be reconstructed. Thus, if the specification of the patent application fails to meet the above requirements, then the grounds for rejection of the patent shall be determined after July 196, 1995 pursuant to Article 82(1)1)1 of the former Patent Act.
The court below determined that the patent application invention of this case, which is an invention related to pharmaceutical products, is an invention related to the use as a chemical substance of pharmaceutical products, and its effect is "1,2,9-tedyd-9-methyl-3 [2-methyl-1-Hthol-1-day)]-4 H-H-H-H-4-ion chemical compounds (hereinafter referred to as "versydynlon") in the patent application specification, with the effect of pharmacological effect, it is hard to see that the patent application invention of this case, which is an invention related to pharmaceutical products, has the effect of spreading when it is administered together with the dexphere loss at the time of addition." The court below found that the patent application invention of this case, which is an invention of this case, has a more and more specific effect than that of the patent application invention of this case, is merely a very abstract effect, and it is hard to see that the patent application substance of this case, which has a more specific effect than that of the patent application invention of this case, has the effect of dynex of the substance.
In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there is no problem in terms of understanding and reproducing the invention of this case since it did not contain any combination ratio of ingredients, dosages, grounds for the frequency of dosages, or correlations between the treatment effect, etc. of Onnuri theory and dex strins, which are already publicly known substances, as a discussion, and the patent application invention of this case cannot be confirmed by the description. Further, although the patent application statement of this case contains an example of using the instant pharmaceutical products as a soil product, it is not possible for the party to verify the effects of the patent application of this case by the description. In addition, even if the patent application statement of this case contains an example of using the instant pharmaceutical products as a soil product, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there is no problem in the process of examining the effects of the patent application of this case, even if the medicinal effect of the patent application of this case has not been sufficiently verified in the composition statement of this case.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the specification of an invention, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no ground for misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for the specification and the determination of inventive step and the ground for
In addition, the precedent of the appellate brief is different from the case and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.
All arguments in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)