[1] The method of interpreting the scope of claims to determine the contents of a patented invention subject to new and advanced determination

[2] The case holding that a newness and advancement of a patented invention is denied after determining its meaning by taking into account the detailed description of the invention, on the ground that it is not clear solely by the description that "under the existence of a congrative content" in the claim of the patented invention

[1] Article 42(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 29(2) and 42(2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu2260 Decided October 26, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu2089 Decided November 24, 2006

[Defendant-Appellee-Appellant] Papex Amera L. (Attorney Yang Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant)

Simmmmmmmmar, Busan East (Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kuho Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cr., Attorneys Choi Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo9534 decided Oct. 26, 2006

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

1. First, we examine the second ground for appeal.

A. Inasmuch as the patent applicant intends to be protected as a patented invention, the confirmation of the invention subject to a new and advanced determination shall be based on the matters described in the patent application, and it is not allowed to limit or expand the patent application by any other description, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention. However, the matters described in the patent application can be accurately understood by taking into account the detailed description or drawings of the invention. Thus, the matters described in the patent application shall be based on the general meaning of the text, and it shall be objectively and reasonably interpreted after considering the technical significance that the patent applicant intends to express in accordance with the text, taking into account the detailed description and drawings of the invention.

B. As to the meaning of "under the presence of a saved content"

Claim 1 of the patented invention of this case (patent No. 132514) using the name "4-Adidiphenylylphenyls (4-ADPA)" as the manufacturing method for the instant patented invention (patent No. 132514) is the manufacturing method of 4-ADPA, an intermediate compounds of 4-APA, and p-NPA, not hereinafter referred to as "entent 1"), among appropriate solvents (hereinafter referred to as "entent 2"), within a limited reaction range of appropriate temperature (hereinafter referred to as "entent 3"), appropriate salt and (hereinafter referred to as "entent 4"), reactions under a adjusted quantity of bilateral material (hereinafter referred to as "entent 5").

With respect to components 5, it cannot be said clear to mean only by the description itself of the language or text itself. Considering the detailed description of the invention, it is understood that components 5 are the condition that the content of the bilateral material is adjusted to maintain the reaction between the leading body and the nitrobenent, not by melting or replacing it, but by controlling the bilateral substance such as water existing at the time of reaction.

Furthermore, it is important to regulate the content of the two material existing at the time of reaction. (4) If the reaction is not generally known, the reaction itself does not exceed 4%, and the reaction is conducted within a permissible range. Accordingly, the reaction according to this invention may be conducted within the range of 4%," "the reaction pursuant to this invention may be conducted under the conditions of water," "the content of the two material may not be adjusted as H-1, and the content of the two material may not be adjusted as H-1, i.e., e., the content of the compound at least 4% of the reaction, and the content of the compound at least 4% of the compound at the time of its use as H-1, i.e., the content of the compound at least 4% of the compound at the time of reaction, and the content of the compound at least 4% of the compound at the time of its use as sp-1, i.e., the content of the two material at the time of its use as spp-4, the content of the compound.

However, the detailed description of the invention states that “if the dykes are to be used as salt with dykes, it shall not be used as dykes.” It shall be somewhat elective loss by reducing the quantity of dykes so that it may be lowered by approximately 0.5% of the reaction material, and 2-Nphenyls may still be generated more than the minimum quantity, but the total quantity of dykes and 4-Nphenyls and/or dykes may not be increased by 0% of the total quantity of dykes which may be used as dykes if the two are to be used as dykes.” This is not merely a minimum quantity of dykes to maintain the option of products desired, but it shall not be considered that the minimum quantity of dykes and/or dykes would be less than 0% of the total quantity of dykes which may be used as dykes and/or dykes.

C. Preparation for Claim 1 of the instant patent invention and comparison with comparable inventions at the time of original adjudication

On the premise of the foregoing determination, in comparison with the cited invention in comparison with the claim 1 and the cited invention at the time of the original adjudication, the reaction condition of the comparable invention that removes both the two substances, such as the water generated in the reaction of Niten and Nitene, shall not be included in Claim 1, and the element 1, 3, and 4 of Claim 1 shall be the same as “the composition that results in reaction at the temperature of 110 to 125C” of the comparable invention, “the composition that uses nitine as salt source” and “the composition that uses nitium as salt source,” as legitimate in the detailed explanation of the invention, the element 2 of Claim 1 shall not be limited to “at the same time as the 0th century, N-methyl, N-methyl, DNA, ethyl, and dicotine, and so on, it shall not be deemed that it is more than 0 ethyl content than 0 mix 2 in light of the content of the invention.”

Since the comparable invention provides a method of manufacturing P-NDPA by directly responding nbening nbene through salt benching, claims 1, its purpose and effect are common, claims 1, and claims 1 do not limit it to a specified number of rates, and they include a claim with a low water rate as well as an invention with a low water rate, it cannot be said that there is a difference between the comparable invention and the water rate.

(d) Conclusion

If so, it is reasonable to deem that a claim 1 is new and non-obviousness based on the comparable invention. As long as the nonobviousness and non-obviousness of claim 1 are denied, claims 2 through 6, 9 through 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 through 29, 32 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 41 through 54, 57 through 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 76, and 72 of the claims 1 are included in all the elements of claims 1, it shall not be deemed that a new and non-obviousness of claims 2 through 6, 9 through 11, 14, 16, 18 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 51 through

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the claim 1’s elements 2 are different from the response structure of the comparable invention and the corresponding invention’s elements 5 are different from that of the comparable invention, and that the purpose and effects of the claim 1 and the comparable invention are different from those of the corresponding invention. However, the lower court determined that the claim 1 and the corresponding invention’s claim 1 are not new and non-obviousness based on the comparison invention, and on this premise, determined that the claim 2 through 6, 13, 14, 16, 18 through 29, 32 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 41 through 54, 57 through 59, 61, 62, 64, 66 through 72-2, and the inventiveness of the claim 1 and the corresponding invention are not denied. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation and inventiveness of the claims.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)