[1] Where the claim contains a description of an article by function, effect, nature, etc., a lawful method of the claim(s)

[2] In the case of a claim for a patented invention made of an independent claim and its subordinate claims, etc., whether the description of the independent claim may be limited to the technical composition, etc. of a subordinate claim (negative)

[1] Where the scope of a patent contains specification of an article by function, effect, nature, etc., if a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can clearly understand the invention that he/she intends to obtain from the scope of a patent in consideration of the description of the invention, drawings, etc. and the technical awareness at the time of the application, the description of the scope of a patent

[2] In understanding the technical contents of a patent invention claim, which consists of several paragraphs, such as independent claims and dependent claims that limit them, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be interpreted by limiting the technical composition of a subordinate claim that restricts the technical contents of an independent claim more specifically than that of an independent claim, or a specific practice example derived from the detailed description of the invention.

[1] Article 42(4) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 42(4) of the Patent Act

Plaintiff (Patent Firm Dan Patent Firm, Patent Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Alphan J. Skym Rocop (Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2004Heo2987 decided May 20, 2005

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

1. As to the legitimacy of the correction

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is proper that the correction of the claim 6(6) of the patented invention (patent No. 166983) of this case (patent No. 166983) (hereinafter “instant Claim 6”) under the name of the court below is lawful, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of legality of the correction of the patented invention, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the determination of patent requirements

Where the scope of a claim contains a description of an article by function, effect, nature, etc., if it is clearly recognizable that a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains intends to obtain a patent from the description of the claim in consideration of the description of the invention, drawings, etc. and the technical awareness at the time of the application, the description of the claim shall be lawful. In addition, in understanding the description of the claim made in several paragraphs, such as an independent claim and a dependent claim limiting it, the description of the claim shall not be interpreted by limiting it to a specific example of the description of the independent claim, which is widely and specifically limited to the description of the independent claim than the independent claim, unless there are special circumstances.

A. As to the omission of entry in the specification

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the composition of the "means to stabilize the location of the integrated circuits parts ranging from the presses (24) within the corresponding storage pockets (24) by putting up the corrected tt 1 (d) 1 (10) and 2 T 2 (10A) of the invention of this case by putting up the corrected t 1 (10) and 2 T t 10 (10A) and fixing the integrated circuits parts (11) and near the t 24th (24) by putting up the integrated circuits." In light of the description of the invention's detailed description or drawings, etc. and the technical awareness at the time of the filing of the application, the elements of the corrected t t 1 (d) invention of this case can be seen as the t 1), 2 support method that can be seen as the t t t 1, 2 support method that can be seen as the t t t t t 1 (10A) structure of this case.

In the same purport, it is proper that the court below determined that the invention of Paragraph 6 of this case and Paragraph 7 to Paragraph 18 of this case, which is its subordinate claim, meet the requirements for the specification of claims, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the specification of claims, as otherwise

B. As to the inventive step of the instant invention

In light of the above legal principles and records, the purpose of the instant Claim No. 6 invention, the technical composition of which is determined as identical to the instant Claim No. 6 and the cited Invention No. 2, at the time of original adjudication, are the same in that both the instant Claim No. 6 invention and the instant Claim No. 6 provide an tray for the storage of integrated circuit components in order to prevent any damage to the terminals. In the original adjudication of the instant Claim No. 6 invention, the composition of the instant Claim No. 6 invention corresponds to the tray system for the storage of TSOP integrated circuits parts of fin carbon in comparable Invention 2, and the elements (a), (b), and (c) are as follows: (d) in the original adjudication of the instant Claim No. 6 invention, the elements (d) of the instant Claim No. 6 invention are as those of the comparable Invention 2’s frame 2, with the means of support formed in the upper and lower part and the part 2 in the outer frame, and they can stick out with the main frame and the joint.

However, the Claim 6 invention of this case differs in that it is a tray system to store a large number of ludles integrated circuit parts, and the comparable invention 2 is an tray system to store fin other integrated circuit parts. However, according to the records, at the time of the application of the patent invention of this case, the integrated circuit parts had already been developed from fin inputs, which are visible from fin inputs, and the comparison invention 2 of this case began with "the central part of the stored integrated circuit parts in which the 1 support method is formed into the trags of the storage box area, which does not contact the press." Thus, if an ordinary engineer producing the storage panel of the integrated circuit parts is an ordinarily skilled person, in line with the change in the above form of the integrated circuit parts, it cannot be said that there is technical difficulty in making an tray to store the part of the integrated circuit parts from the bit of the comparable invention 2. Thus, the invention of this case can not be easily inventive from the comparison invention 6 (2) of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below did not deny the inventive step of the Claim No. 6 invention of this case, and judged that the inventive step of the Claim No. 6 invention of this case cannot be denied unless the inventive step of the Claim No. 6 invention of this case cannot be denied as long as the inventive step of the Claim No. 6 invention of this case cannot be denied, and the inventive step of the Claim No. 7 of this case No. 18 of this case, which is the dependent claim No. 6 of this case, cannot be denied as long as it is not possible to deny the inventive step of the Claim No. 6 invention of this case, and the inventive step of the Claim No. 6 of this case, which is its subordinate claim No. 7 or No. 18 of this case, cannot be denied as the inventive step of the Claim No. 6 of this case, which is its subordinate claim No. 81 and No. 84.

3. Conclusion

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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)