등록무효(특)
The judgment below
Of those, claims of patent number No. 68015 are subject to paragraphs 17 through 22, 24 and 27 of this Act.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the invention of this case Nos. 12 through 16, 23, 25, 26, and 28
A. Inasmuch as the scope of protection of a patented invention is a principle to determine the scope of protection by the descriptions of the claims, if the technical scope is apparent only by the descriptions of the claims, the scope of protection may not be limited by other descriptions of the claims.
However, in cases where the technical composition of the patented invention is unknown or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even if the description alone is known, it may be supplemented by another description in the specification, but even in such cases, it is not permissible to expand the description of the claims by another description in the specification.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2605 Decided March 29, 2012). B.
The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention(s) claim No. 12(s) of the instant patent invention(s) (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 68015”) based on the name “the method of attaching EMI's license on the surface chief technology exchange EMI (Electic interference) and EMI's license on the EMI's Track Track,” was denied pursuant to the cited Invention 1 or 2 as indicated below, on the following grounds, on the ground that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention(s) is denied by the cited Invention 1 or 2 as indicated in the holding of the lower court.
(1) In light of the general meaning of the above terms in the pertinent technical field and the overall description of the specification of the instant patent invention, the instant Claim No. 12’s “EMI’s license” functions as an electrical contact assistant who contacts electric electric prior tokocks as well as the function of general EMI’s license.