The method of determining an invention subject to new and advanced determination and the method of interpreting "matters described in the scope of the claim".

Article 42(2) of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3625 Decided October 25, 2007 Supreme Court Decision 201Hu3230 Decided December 27, 2012

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Nam-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2014Heo7066 Decided June 19, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Inasmuch as the claims state the matter that a patent applicant intends to be protected as a patented invention, the confirmation of an invention subject to a new and advanced determination shall be based on the matters indicated in the claims: Provided, That it is possible to accurately understand the technical meaning of the invention by taking into account the description, drawings, etc. of the invention. As such, the matters indicated in the claims should be based on the general meaning of the language and text, and objectively and rationally construed after considering the technical significance of the invention that the patent applicant intends to express in accordance with the said language and text, taking into account the description, drawings, etc. However, even if considering the description, drawings, etc. of the invention, it is not permissible to limit or expand the scope of claims by other descriptions, such as the description, drawings, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Hu3230, Dec. 2

2. The patent application invention of this case (application number omitted) is an invention related to the technology in which the name “a device calculating the depth of the lub projector” is “a device calculating the depth of the lub projector,” and the light with a certain lubton is distorted in light of the target product (lub projector) is measured by image to calculate the distance from the target product or the depth of the target product (the surface).

The claims 1 of the invention in this case (amended on December 2, 2013; hereinafter referred to as "paragraph 1 invention in this case") of the patent application invention in this case, ① the component 1-1 of the judgment of the court below is the part that "a component of the judgment of the court below gives a national or substantial change to a pattern or a fluence to a pattern with the above area." ② The component 1-2 of the judgment of the court below is the part that "the formation of the fluston in this case includes an administration or reflective substance and contains a difference in the thickness of each part, or the excavation rate, administration rate, or reflect rate by each part, and ③ the component of the judgment of the court below is the part that "the producer of the fluston in this case is modified to the above two parts of the fluston in order to transform the flus, the thickness, excavation rate by each part, administration rate by each part, or reflect rate by each part."

3. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention was not denied on the grounds that the ordinary skilled person could easily derive the elements of the instant Claim No. 1 invention from the comparable inventions as indicated in the lower judgment, but the elements 1-3 cannot be easily derived.

(1) If the “luminous alteration device” of the comparable invention is compared to the applicant of the instant patent application invention, only start up only the creation of light structure light with a certain pattern of pattern, and further does not suggest or suggest the modification of the thickness, excavation rate, administration rate, or reflect rate of each part of the light alteration device to change the structure or light already created.

(2) In contrast, there is no circumstance to deem that a person with ordinary skill could easily have known the fact that he/she could not accurately calculate the depth of the area of the subject matter when he/she administered the structure of the pattern of the pattern that does not fit the characteristics of the subject matter, and that he/she could have easily altered the structure pattern pattern in line with the characteristics of the subject matter.

(3) The specification of the patent application invention of this case contains both a provisional transformation that changes with a fixed pattern that is not changed by the internship producer. However, among the patent invention of this case 1-3 invention of this case, it is limited that the pattern producer of the component 1-3 can transform the thickness, excavation rate, administration rate, or reflect rate by each part in order to transform the pattern. Thus, the pattern 1-3 pattern producer of the component 1-3 pattern is included only in the provisional transformation.

4. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of claims, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)