[등록무효(특)][공2013상,103]
[1] The meaning of "to the extent that an ordinary skilled person can easily implement the invention in the art to which the invention belongs" under Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act, and whether Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act violates Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act where it is easy for an ordinary skilled person to accurately understand and reproduce the invention described in the claim(negative)
[2] In a case where Gap filed a petition for a patent invalidation trial against Eul corporation, a patentee, on the grounds of lack of detailed description of the invention, etc., with respect to the patented invention named "a manufacturing method of carbon-containings", the case holding that the specification of the patented invention cannot be deemed as lack of description in violation of Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act despite any error in some of the detailed description of the invention
[1] Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197 of Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that the detailed description of the invention must state the purpose, construction, and effect of the invention so that an ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can be easily implemented. This is intended to clarify the technical content and scope of the invention to be protected as a patent right by disclosing its contents to a third party easily known only with the specification. As such, the degree of description required in the above provision is that an ordinary skilled person can accurately understand the invention without considering excessive experiments or special knowledge as the technological standard at the time of application and at the same time, and at the same time, the invention is deemed to refer to the invention described in the claim. Thus, even if an error is described in the detailed description of the invention, if such error is not described in the claim, or if it is not described in the claim, it cannot be said that it is a violation of Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act.
[2] In a case where Gap filed for a patent invalidation trial against Eul corporation for the reason that the detailed description of the invention is not clearly stated to the extent that the ordinary technician can easily implement the invention, the case holding that even if there are errors in the detailed description of the invention in the detailed description of the invention, it is related to the part other than the necessary matters for the implementation of the invention, and if an ordinary technician is an ordinary technician, it can accurately understand and reproduce the invention without any difficulty based on the overall description and technical formula despite such errors, the specification of the patented invention cannot be deemed as inconsistent with Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197 of Jan. 3, 2007).
[1] Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197 of Jan. 3, 2007) / [2] Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197 of Jan. 3, 2007)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2582 Decided October 13, 2011 (Gong2011Ha, 2381)
Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Lee Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Nanokian Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Dong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Patent Court Decision 2012Heo1873 Decided July 13, 2012
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197, Jan. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that the detailed description of the invention must state the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention so that an ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can be easily implemented (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”). This is intended to clarify the technical content and scope of the invention to be protected as a patent right by disclosing its contents to a third party easily known only with the specification. As such, the degree of description required under the aforementioned provision refers to the degree that an ordinary technician can understand the invention accurately without considering its level of technology at the time of application and without adding excessive or special knowledge, and at the same time, it is possible to reproduce the invention by the description in the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2582, Oct. 13, 2011). 201; where an error described in the claim is deemed a violation of Article 4 of the former Patent Act.
2. We examine the above legal principles and records.
According to the "detailed description of the invention" regarding the patented invention of this case (patent number No. 596026) using the name as "fluorite manufacturing method": (a) carbon mixture, which is a raw material of carbon in the first mination process, is 98:0.88:0.0.880.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0....00...00...00......00....00.........) of the 3rd table stating the result of analysis of part of the carbon plate based on the patented invention of this case as its sample, it is 0.0.0.0.0.0..0...00........) of the 8th of the 2nd of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 00th of the temperature.0.0.0.
However, the claim(1) and(2) of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter “the claim(s) inventions of this case”) are inventions concerning the manufacturing method of carbon-type bodies composed of “mination process,” “mix process,” “mix process,” “mix, air-conditioning, cooling, and rhyming process,” “co-rating process,” etc. The claim(s) only include the content of carbon-type body’s raw material, but do not include the substance or content of carbon-type body manufactured by the method in the claim(s). Thus, these inventions do not constitute an invention of carbon-type body(s) in light of the level of technology at the time of application. Moreover, even if an ordinary technician in light of the substance, it is reasonable to understand the substance and content of the above raw material and its substance in light of the substance and content, and thus, it can be easily understood that there is an error in the specifications and content of the invention in light of the substance and content of the invention(s) of this case’s 1 invention in light of the substance and content.
In addition, the result of the analysis of the Table 3 above does not include sub-mixs and the tepthic resin, which are the co-building ingredients used in the completion process. However, the co-building amount is limited to the exterior of the carbon-type body, and the result of the analysis of Table 3 is limited to the samples of part of the carbon-type body, so if samples were collected from the inside part of the carbon-type body, it may not be found in the result of the analysis. Thus, it cannot be viewed that there was an error by the result of the analysis of the carbon-type body in Table 3, which did not detect the liquid ingredients.
Ultimately, the specification of the instant patent invention cannot be said to have any omission of description in violation of Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act in relation to each of the above matters.
Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the detailed description of the invention in this case of the patented invention is difficult to be deemed to have been described to the extent that ordinary technicians can easily implement the invention, on the grounds that the combination ratio of carbon mixtures, which is the raw materials of carbon type, and the composition ratio of carbon mixtures completed through the heat process several times, are contrary to the technical formula, and that it is not entirely detected from the analysis result of the carboning body used in the completion process, and that the sylmixeds and the splons spins spins spins spins spins spins spins spins spins spins spins spins spins
3. Therefore, 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 Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)