[1] In a case where (a) a Subparag. (a) device compared to a registered device has only a part of the essential components of the claim for registration within the scope of the registered device, whether the (a) device falls under the scope of the right within the registered device (negative)

[2] The case holding that (a) a device, which lacks essential elements of a registered complaint and does not have any other equivalent elements, does not fall within the scope of the right of the registered complaint without examining the remaining parts of the composition

[1] In a case where a claim within the scope of a request for registration of a registered device consists of multiple elements, each element is protected as a whole, which is an organic combination, and each element is not protected independently. Thus, if (a) a device compared to a registered device has only a part of the essential elements as stated in a claim within the scope of a request for registration within the registered device, and the remainder of the elements are lacking, in principle, the device is not within the scope of a right within the registered device.

[2] The case holding that (a) a device, which lacks essential elements of a registered complaint and does not have any other equivalent elements, does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered complaint without examining the remaining parts of the plan

[1] Articles 8(4) (see current Article 9(4)), 29 (see current Article 42), and 35 (see current Article 45), and Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 8(4) (see current Article 9(4)), 29 (see current Article 42), and 35 (see current Article 9(4) of the former Utility Model Act (Amended by Act No. 5577, Sep. 23, 1998); Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2351 delivered on November 14, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 65), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2856 delivered on June 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1539), Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu617 delivered on June 15, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1655), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu2372 Delivered on August 21, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 2116)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Patent Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo901 delivered on May 13, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a claim within the scope of a request for registration of a registered device consists of multiple elements, it shall be deemed that the professional engineer as a whole is protected as an organic combination of each element, and each element is not independent. Thus, where (a) a device compared to a registered device has only a part of the essential elements as stated in a claim within the scope of a request for registration within the registered device, and the remainder is lacking, in principle, the device referred to in subparagraph (a) does not fall within the scope of a right within the registered device (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu2351, Nov. 14, 200; 200Hu617, Jun. 15, 2001).

2. According to the records, the scope of the claim for registration of the instant registered device (registration number omitted) of this case pertaining to children’s protection coordinates is set up at the center of the upper part of the upper part of the earth, installed at the center of the upper part of the earth, installed at the center of the upper part of the earth, installed at the top of the upper part of the earth, and installed on the part of the upper part of the earth, and installed on the part of the upper part of the upper part of the earth, and installed at the center of the upper part of the front part of the earth. Paragraph 2 of the scope of the claim for registration is the dependent part of Paragraph 1 of this Article with safety level attached with safety level attached with elements such as a conclusion tool, fixed apparatus, fixed string, etc., to the parts of the lower part of the claim for registration of this case. (a) Of the elements of Paragraph 1 of this case, the effect of the claim for registration of this case does not belong to the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the 1st unit, and its effect does not belong to the upper part of the upper part of the 1.

3. The court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of rights in the registered complaint, or misunderstanding of facts as to the registered complaint.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)