The case holding that the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the invention of paragraph (1) of the patented invention, on the ground that the "a floor part fixed to an Aluminium aluminium house" in paragraph (1) of the patent claim for the patented invention with the name "a single heat materials installed at Aluminium aluminium or construction materials fixed to an Aluminium aluminium house" does not limit the scope of the patent claim to the method fixed to an Aluminium aluminium aluminium, and there is no need to limit it like the examples

Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Choi Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo7598 Decided June 24, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, among claims 1 (registration No. 614839) of the patent invention of this case (registration No. 614839) using the title "a flusium flusium flusium or a part of the patent invention of this case (registration No. 614839) (hereinafter "claim 1 invention of this case"), "the floor part fixed to Alusium flusium flusium" in the decision of the court below is fixed to Alusium flusium, and at the same time performing the function of supporting slusium flusium. Thus, among the elements of the invention subject to confirmation in the decision of the court below, the distance maintenance part is identical to "the distance maintenance part formed by the lower part" and its function and effects are identical to "the distance maintenance part formed by the lower part" among the elements of the invention subject to confirmation. However, there is no limit to claims as to the method fixed to Alusium flusium flusium flusium.

In addition, the invention subject to confirmation includes both the same composition as that of the remainder except 1-a among the inventions in paragraph (1) of this case, and the organic combination relationship among its components is also included. Thus, the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the invention in paragraph (1) of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of the right to claim 1 invention of this case because it lack of the same composition as that of the 1-a floor of this case due to the lack of the 1-a floor of this case on the ground that the scope of the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of the right to claim 1 invention, by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the scope of claims, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment 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 on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)