The scope of protection of a patented invention is determined by the matters set forth in the scope of the patent claim. If a patented invention becomes multiple elements, an invention that only satisfies the essential elements does not fall under the scope of the patent right of the patented invention (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu2856, Jun. 1, 2001; 99Hu1584, Sept. 7, 2001). In a case where the patented invention has a characteristic of omitting the technical means ordinarily used in the previous technology, if the challenged invention explicitly adopts the omitted technical means, the invention does not fall under the scope of the patent right of the patented invention, and is not included in the scope of the right of the patented invention.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, paragraph (1) of the claim scope of the patented invention of this case (registration No. 29298) related to the antenna device (registration No. 29298) of the patented invention of this case (registration No. 29298) is an element of "the 1/4m antenna power point directly connected to the electrical circuit of 50 oms without a typhical change." This element is commonly the fact that the antenna device is commonly connected directly to the main body of the portable communications device by omitting the typhr change installed between the stude of the antenna and the main body of the portable communications device. However, the composition of the challenged invention of this case, seeking confirmation that the Defendant does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, is not an "dyping electrically connected to the typ terminal and circuit," and it is not an element of the invention of this case, which is not an independent antenna connected to the device of this case, but an element of the instant claim 1.

Unlike this, the court below's determination that the challenged invention in the decision of the court below explicitly adopted the Pacific conversion machine, but falls under the scope of the right of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of the right of

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)