[1] The method of interpreting the "matters stated in the scope of a patent claim" for the confirmation of an invention subject to a new and advanced judgment

[2] The case holding that the inventive step is denied on the ground that the patent application invention whose name "the method and device to determine the broadcast content and the protective line in the broadcasting system" does not have any substantial difference between the cited invention and each corresponding composition, and that there is no substantial difference between the two inventions and each corresponding composition, and that both inventions can adjust whether they are broadcast by information on the preference, etc. of all viewers, and that the inventive step can be easily described by the cited inventions

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3625 Decided October 25, 2007

Intecoa Ltd. (Patent Attorney Shin Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2007Heo1107 decided Nov. 22, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal

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 set forth 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 considering 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 shall be objectively and reasonably interpreted after considering the technical significance that the patent applicant intends to express by the text in consideration of the detailed description and drawings of the invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3625, Oct. 25, 2007, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, it is reasonable to interpret the name as "a method and device to determine the broadcast content and to determine the line in the broadcast system" as "the patent application invention of this case (No. 10-2002-7012348) (hereinafter "paragraph (1) invention of this case") 1 of the elements of the judgment of the court below, "the broadcast or "the broadcast or the broadcast" itself cannot clearly confirm the technical meaning of the elements of the claim 1 of this case (hereinafter "paragraph (1) invention of this case"), and it is not possible to clarify the technical meaning by itself. Thus, the court below is just to interpret the name as "the broadcast content and the apparatus to determine the broadcast content in the broadcast system," and it is not a case where the broadcast is planned to be broadcast with the present broadcast program and Meta-data, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. There is no violation of a violation of the law of precedents as to

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the record, the elements 1 of the instant Claim No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below are the same in that the response structure of the comparable invention as indicated in the judgment of the court below and the broadcaster transmit the viewers’ preference information on the response structure and program of the comparable invention as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the elements 2 are the same in that the viewers’ preference information on the program is reflected in the subsequent program programming in consideration of the response structure of the comparable invention and the viewers’ preference. However, each response structure of the two inventions is different from that of the instant Claim No. 1 in that the program is broadcasted after the broadcasting of the camera-data, and the program is transmitted at the same time from the comparable invention where the contact file is transmitted at the same time as the program. However, the composition of the content file and customer profiling information stored at the three-top multimedia terminal of the customer’s broadcasting channel and the content of the broadcast program can not be seen to have been adjusted by adjusting the viewer’s preference information on the broadcast content after the use of the program.

Thus, although the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case is denied when a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily make an invention based on the comparable invention, the court below determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of the invention in the application, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)