[특허무효][공1995.12.1.(1005),3788]
(a) The description of the patent application;
B. Criteria for determining the scope of the patented invention
(c) The case holding that the non-obviousness is recognized differently from the purpose, technical composition, and effect of both inventions;
A. The purpose of Article 8(3) and (4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990) is to clarify the technical scope of an invention claimed in a patent application by publishing the content of the invention to a third party. Thus, if a person has an average technical ability in the art related to the invention based on the technical level at the time of the patent application, it would be sufficient that the person has clearly understood the content of the invention claimed in the patent application and stated to the extent that it
B. The scope of a patented invention shall not only be indicated in the scope of a patent claim, but also be comprehensively indicated in the detailed description of the invention and the brief description of the drawings, by clarifying the nature and purpose of the invention and taking into account the aforementioned factors.
(c) The case holding that the non-obviousness is recognized differently from the purpose, technical composition, and effect of both inventions.
Articles 8(3) and 8(4) (see current Article 42(3) and (4)) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 29(2) of the Patent Act
Supreme Court Decision 92Hu49 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2562) 94Hu1558 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong195, 1558) Supreme Court Decision 72Hu42 delivered on July 10, 1973 (Nob22) 90Hu1499 Delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 305)
Suwon Trade Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other
(a) The manager and regular training of Cambodia, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant; and
Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 433 decided April 30, 1994
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the first ground for appeal
According to Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 190), the detailed description of the invention in the patent application refers to that the purpose, composition, effects, and effects of the invention shall be stated to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the invention. According to Article 8(4) of the same Act, the scope of the patent application shall clearly and concisely state the subject matter in the specification as one or more claims. The purport of such provision is to clarify the technical scope by publishing the contents of the invention in the patent application to a third party. Thus, if a person has an average technical ability in the art related to the invention in the patent application based on the technical level at the time of patent application, it is sufficient that anyone has a clear understanding of the subject matter in the patent application and an indication to the extent that the invention can reproduce it (see Supreme Court Decision 92Hu49, Jul. 28, 1992). 19).
In the above purport, although there is a somewhat unclear or unclear general expression in the specification or the claim scope of this case, if a person with ordinary knowledge in the art in question has ordinary knowledge in the art, he can reproduce it by clearly understanding and recognizing the technical scope or the scope of the right as a whole in the specification by supplementing the detailed description or example of the specification. Thus, although the court below's decision that the specification and the claim scope of the patent are lawful is somewhat insufficient, it is acceptable to accept the decision of the court below as a legitimate result, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the drafting of the specification or the claim scope, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the incomplete hearing.
2. On the second ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the patented invention Gap's patent and evidence Nos. 5 (No. 55-32760 of Japan's Patent Gazette announced as of Aug. 27, 1980) and Gap's evidence No. 6 (No. 52-31401 of Japan's Patent Gazette announced as of Aug. 15, 197) are identical to the invention invention of this case, and the invention of this case is an invention of sports or work bamboo and its manufacturing methods, and the quoted invention of Gap's evidence No. 5 is an invention of this case for the purpose of the purpose of achieving the non-obviousness of the invention No. 6, since the patented invention of this case is related to the end of leather and the microbiological processing method, and it is hard to find that the patented invention of this case and the quoted invention of this case are different in its purpose from each other's patented invention of this case to the extent that it is not possible to cite it with a grather compound reaction reaction or mal compound reaction effect.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing claimant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)