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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The purport of Articles 133-2 and 136(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 9381 of Jan. 30, 2009) is to allow a patentee who is the respondent in an invalidation trial to make a request for correction within the invalidation trial procedure even if he/she does not request a separate trial for correction. However, the scope of the claims is not substantially expanded or modified, and it does not allow a reduction of the scope of claims or correction of errors and correction of errors to the extent that it does not infringe any third party's rights.

In light of the purport of this provision, the correction of such error includes: (a) removing any deficiency described in the claim(s) where the description itself does not clearly specify the meaning thereof; and (b) integrating the description and the claim(s) where there is any inconsistency or inconsistency between the description and the claim(s) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Hu3096, Jul. 28, 2006; 201Hu3193, Feb. 28, 2013). Meanwhile, the claim(s) specify all or part of the technical idea described in the detailed description as the scope of protection of the patented invention; and (c) all the technical ideas described in the detailed description are not necessarily included in the claim(s) and thus, it is difficult to deem that the claim(s) contains any inconsistency or inconsistency between the detailed description and the claim(s) on the ground that the matters not described in the claim(s) are included in the detailed description(s).

B. We examine the above legal principles and records.

(1) The instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 1103188) using the name “heat preserving preserving preserving preserving strings” as “dipent.”