1. Articles 133-2 and 136(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter the same) provide that a patentee may file a petition for correction of the specification or drawings to the extent that it does not expand or alter the claims.

Whether a claim constitutes a substantial expansion or modification of a claim shall be determined in preparation for the substantial contents of the claim identified by the specification and the entire drawings, including not only the formal description of the claim itself, but also the detailed description of the invention. If a correction of the claim constitutes a reduction of the claim, the purpose or effect thereof cannot be said to be changed, and it reflects the details in the detailed description and drawings, and it does not constitute a substantial modification of the claim, if it is not likely to cause unexpected damage to a third party.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Hu1081, Apr. 29, 2010; 2016Hu830, Apr. 12, 2018). 2. We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records.

A. The instant amendment, subject to the instant patent invention (patent registration number G), whose name is “D,” corrected to “a room (22) where a patent application is in contact with the future,” as “a room (22) where a patent application is in contact with V type.”

This correction is a specific limitation to the form of the office being connected, and it constitutes the reduction of the scope of claims.

B. In addition, the drawings 2 and 3 of the instant patent invention contain a situation where the room is linked to the Vin shape centering on the end part of the hole of the expansion of injection, and the detailed description of the invention states “the room is generally connected to the central part.”

In the technical field to which the patented invention of this case pertains, it is ordinary.