[2] The case holding that a correction request may not be permitted where the patented invention after the correction did not meet the patent requirements as a selective invention compared to the prior invention

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. ①; ② Since the chemical type 1 in the patent invention of this case (Patent No. 398506) is a chemical type 1 in the claim No. 1 in the patent invention of this case (Patent No. 398506) which is a chemical compound with air ventilation of hyd (O-H) or alker (-O-C1-12 Alker) in the alker (No. 1 in the patent invention of this case) which is a chemical compound with air ventilation of alkyl Ekzer (O-CO-C5-7 Alker) in the alkerer (A-C5-7 Alker) in the patent invention of this case, it constitutes a correction of erroneous description; however, the chemical type 1 in the Eker as described in the patent claim before the correction does not have any nature that does not have any other description in the specification, its structure and chemical nature is entirely different, the above correction is justified in the judgment of the grounds for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where a party has filed an application for resumption of oral argument for the purpose of defense and proof after the closing of oral argument, barring any special circumstance, the issue of whether to accept the application for resumption of oral argument belongs to the court’s discretion, and thus, the court did not accept the application for resumption of oral argument after the closing of oral argument, and it cannot be deemed an illegal cause for lack of oral deliberation (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Da1230, Dec. 8, 1987; 2005Da53866, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, even when considering the written appraisal submitted by the plaintiff after the closure of oral argument in the court below, the corrective matters 1 constitutes a case where the claims are substantially modified and thus the correction is not permitted. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's application for resumption of oral argument is deemed appropriate, and the court below's decision is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision. The patented invention of this case after correction did not meet the patent requirements as selective inventions 1 and 2 compared to the prior inventions 1 and 2, and thus, the correction request of this case cannot be permitted since the patent application after correction did not meet the patent requirements as selective inventions. It is just in holding that the correction request of this case cannot be permitted, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the requirements for independent patent in the correction

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)