Method of determining the technical composition of the invention in order to determine patent requirements;

The technical composition of an invention to determine the requirements for a patent shall be determined on the basis of the description of the claims unless there are special circumstances, and it is not allowed to limit the scope of claims according to other description, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention.

Articles 42(2) and 97 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu776 Decided October 13, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1936)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Yellow-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Smers Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo138 Decided January 11, 2007

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Patent Court. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below: (a) compared the claim Nos. 5 (hereinafter “instant Claim Nos. 5”) of the instant patented invention (patent No. 120321) with the cited invention No. 1 and 2 as indicated in the judgment of the court below with the patent No. 1 and the cited invention No. 5 (patent No. 120321), the composition of “channels” or “opens” corresponding to the “slives” of the instant Claim No. 5 (hereinafter “Slive Invention No. 1 and 2, and the aforementioned composition functions as a “channels” or “slives” which are corresponding to the “slives” of the instant patented invention (patent No. 1, 120321) with the name “slives”, and the size of the instant Claim No. 5 invention is not limited to the structure of “slives” and thus, it is justifiable to determine that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 5 invention is denied as it is alleged in the grounds for appeal

On the other hand, while the plaintiff appealed the entire part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff (the claims Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 11 among the patented inventions in this case), the plaintiff did not present the grounds of appeal as to the claims Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 11 among the patented inventions in this case.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The technical composition of an invention to determine the requirements for a patent shall be determined on the basis of the description of the claims, except in extenuating circumstances, and it is not allowed to limit the scope of claims pursuant to other description, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu776, Oct. 13, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, the technical composition of the Claim 6 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim 6 of this case") in the Claim 6 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim 6 of this case") is clear by the description of the claim itself that each virtue is a technical composition that includes both being directly or indirectly connected with the interchange space through one exit at least in the upper part of the outer wall, and each virtue is connected with the interchange space. Thus, it cannot be interpreted that the technical composition of Claim 6 of this case is limited to the composition directly connected with each virtue by having contact with the interchange space, such as its drawing, because each virtue is connected directly or indirectly with the interchange space.

According to the record on the premise of technical composition of the instant Claim No. 6 invention as above, in comparison with the instant Claim No. 6 (hereinafter “Claim No. 6 invention”) and the comparable inventions, the technical composition of the technical composition of various sub- Claim No. 6 (hereinafter “the instant Claim No. 6”) and the technical structure of the technical structure of the technical structure of the art No. 6 to separate and collect the treatment amount in liquid form, and of the relative location change devices between the original and the original and the original tone, are initiated in the upper and lower part of the comparable Invention No. 1, or the structure of the structure of the instant Claim No. 1’s upper and lower part of the instant Claim No. 2 and the upper part of the instant Claim No. 4’s upper and lower part of the instant Claim No. 6, and the technological structure of the technical structure of the technical structure of the instant Claim No. 6, which connects the core to the interchange-type space through the outlet formed in the main body of the comparable Invention No. 4, or the structural structure of the instant invention No. 6.

Nevertheless, the lower court construed the technical composition of the instant Claim No. 6’s interchange space to be directly connected with each other, and interpreted the technical composition of the instant Claim No. 6’s interchange space by directly linking each other. The lower court determined to the effect that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 6’s invention is not denied on the grounds that the basic structure of the two is different and that the effect of treating the instant Claim No. 6’s invention is excellent on the ground that the combination of comparable inventions is compared with several examples of implementation, which may be presented as a combination of comparable inventions, is a result of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the scope of claims and determination

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Patent Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)