[특허무효][공1996.3.15.(6),785]
[1] The description of the patent application specification
[2] The case holding that a patent registration is null and void on the ground that there is no description to the extent that the average technician in the technical field in question can accurately understand and reproduce the invention
[1] According to Article 8(2) and (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990), the specification of a patent application is a person who has an ordinary level of technical understanding in the technical field to which the invention pertains, i.e., a person with an average technological skill, based on the description of the invention, can understand the invention accurately and at the same time, to the extent that the invention can be reproduced without any special knowledge by considering it as the technical level at the time of application based on the description of the specification. Thus, if the specification of the patent application fails to meet the above requirements, it becomes the ground for invalidation of patent under Article 69(1)1 of the former Patent Act.
[2] The case holding that Article 69 (1) 1 of the former Patent Act is null and void on the ground that the patent application specification of the method of construction of the dumping and construction of the dump dump dump dump dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye sye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye
[1] Articles 8(2) and (3) (see current Article 42(2) and (3) (see current Article 42(3)), 69(1)1 (see current Article 133(1)1) of the former Patent Act / [2] Articles 8(2) and (3) (see current Article 42(2) and (3) (see current Article 42(1)1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 69(1)1 (see current Article 133(1)1) of the former Patent Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Hu54 delivered on September 29, 1987 (Gong1987, 1646), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu49 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2562), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1233 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong193, 1404), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu654 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2810)
Seoul Chemical Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Ro-D Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 91Na359 dated June 30, 1994
The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental reasons).
Article 8 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that "the patent application shall be accompanied by the name of 1.1 invention, the brief description of 2. drawing, the detailed description of 3. invention, the description of 4. claim for patent, and the necessary drawings". Article 8 (2) of the former Patent Act provides that "The detailed description of the invention under paragraph (2) 3 shall state the purpose, composition, action, and effect of the invention to the extent that the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily execute the invention." This provision provides that "The average technician can understand the invention accurately without adding special knowledge to the level of technology at the time of application based on the description of the specification, and it is necessary to explain the invention at the same time." Thus, if the invention does not meet the above requirements for patent invalidation under Article 15 (1) 4 of the former Patent Act, it shall be deemed that the patent application is invalid under Article 196 (1.4).
According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the patented invention of this case is about the method of construction of dys-slick-slicking road, and is composed of a number of treatment areas at a certain distance on asphalt or concrete surface and added a dysnick water dys to the dysular dysular dyssular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysular dysic dys.
However, according to the records, the construction of the package slurg as aggregate was known to the use of steel or steel slurg, and the part of the specification of the patent application of this case as to the nonslurgy slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurgs in the specification of the patent application of this case is first stated as follows: "in addition to the slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurgs which changed into the slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurg slurgs by adding the slurg slurg slurg slurb
Therefore, the patented invention of this case is characterized by the non-susopic susopic susal susopic susmatal suss we can find out that the patent application of this case contains the characteristics of the non-susopic susopic susopic sus we can say that the patent application of this case does not include various kinds of susopic suss and susopic suss, how to select what structure and ingredients among the susopic suss and susopic suss, how to create the ratio of the susopic suss and susopic susscropic susscropic susscropic sus, and how to suspopic susscopic suss can not be seen as being specified, and therefore, the patent application of this case cannot be seen as invalid under Article 16(1) of the former Patent Act as it does not contain any special knowledge at the time of the invention.
Nevertheless, the decision of the court below that held that the specification of the patent application of this case did not specify the ingredients and conditions of the non-explosion-explosion in detail and that the invention could not be easily implemented is an error of law that affected the decision by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the description of the patent application, thereby pointing this out. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)