[권리범위확인(실)][미간행]
[1] Method of determining the scope or scope of protection of a registered utility model
[2] The case holding that although the claim of a registered utility model contains "in cases where "in cases where "in cases where "in cases where "in cases are added to "" with regard to the construction of carbon sprinking, the above carbon sprinking shall be deemed to have been inserted into the outer states of the connection absence when the description and drawings of the specification are supplemented
[1] Articles 9(4), 42, and 50 of the Utility Model Act; Article 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 50 of the Utility Model Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1040 delivered on April 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1361) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2351 delivered on November 14, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 65) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2856 delivered on June 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1539)
Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Hong Jae-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Patent Court Decision 2005Heo11087 decided July 7, 2006
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. The scope or scope of protection of a registered utility model shall be determined by the matters described in the claims of the registered utility model. In interpreting the meaning of the text, an objective and reasonable interpretation shall be based on the general meaning of the text and text, and an objective and reasonable interpretation shall be based on the description and drawings of the device, and where the technical composition of the device is not known from the text and text of the claims of the registered utility model, the scope or scope of protection of the registered utility model shall be determined by supplementing other descriptions and drawings (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu1040, Apr. 10, 1998; 2001Hu3262, May 16, 2003, etc.).
2. Examining the foregoing legal principles and records, Paragraph 1 of the registered device of this case (registration number No. 223717) states that “the scope of the utility model registration of this case is inserted in the connecting absence” in relation to the construction of “shotning.” The prior or ordinary meaning of “shotning” can be understood as inserting other objects between the crepan and hole. It can be understood that “shoting” is inserted inside the connecting absence, but it is also possible to use the word “shoting” in the outer cover of the outer cover of the outer cover of the registered device, so it is difficult to determine where the phrase “shoting” in the registered device of this case is inserted into the outer cover of the outer cover of the connected absence, and it cannot be seen that the phrase “shoting” of the registered device of this case is inserted into the outer cover of the connected absence, or if it is not inserted into the outer cover of the outer cover of the outer cover of the outer cover of the outer cover of the outer cover of the outer cover of the specification and the outer cover of the outer cover of the specification.
Although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion that the challenged bill does not use the composition of the registered complaint of this case as it is or in the equal area is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles, violation of precedents, etc. as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)