The case holding that since the invention described in the claim(s) of the specification is used in detail in the specification attached to the patent application and different terms as to the same section(s) and the meaning of the terms is unclear, it is difficult to clearly understand the contents and scope of rights, and there is any error in writing in the section(s) of the specification(s), the description is contrary to Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act.

The case holding that since the invention described in the claim(s) of the specification is used in detail in the specification attached to the patent application and different terms as to the same section(s) and the meaning of the terms is unclear, it is difficult to clearly understand the contents and scope of rights, and there is any error in writing in the section(s) of the specification(s), the description is contrary to Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act.

Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act

(1) The patent attorney Park Jae-chul, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

January 14, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 27, 2004 on the case No. 2002 Won4259 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1, No. 1 to 4, No. 8]

A. Application invention of this case

The plaintiff's patent application invention of this case (the patent application number No. 1999-51032, the date of application November 17, 1999) is related to "proponary organization of vertical goods" and its scope of claims (which was amended by the amendment (No. 3) such as the specification, etc. of February 8, 2002) and drawings are as shown in attached Table 1.

B. Reasons for the decision of refusal and the trial decision of this case

On August 7, 2002, the Korean Intellectual Property Office has different terms (e.g., codes 25,26) with respect to the same parts of the specification, (e., codes 25,26), respectively, used the combined organizational slope, the combined organizational slope, the combined organizational slope, the combined organizational slope, the combined organizational slope, the non-consolidated organization slope, the non-consolidated organization slope, and the combined organizational slope). (2) In other words (e.g., the claims 10 through 27 through 37, 38 through 44, 35 through 45). (3) In other words, the effect column of the invention is limited to the position that appears to be the same composition, and the decision of refusal is inconsistent with the claims 4(2) of the Patent Act.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a petition for a trial seeking the revocation of the above decision of rejection, and the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the petition as 2002 Won4259 and dismissed the plaintiff's petition for a trial on February 27, 2004.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

(1) As to the use of different terms for the same heading

The detailed description of the invention in the application of this case and the scope of the patent application of this case include "25,26 of the map code", "biff for the combined organization", "2 of the company for the combined organization", "2 of the company for the combined organization", "4 or 14 of the map code", respectively, and are used in combination with "sect for the combined organization for the combined organization", "sect for the combined organization", "sect for the combined organization", "non-consolidated organization slope for the combined organization" and "non-consolidated organization slope for the combined organization". The plaintiff used the drawings code 25,26 to show the history of the combined organization, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to clearly explain its role in the implementation case, such as "sect for the combined organization", "b.2" in order to understand the detailed implementation cases of the invention in this case, rather than for a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field, it is difficult for him to use the same term in the same description and to clearly understand the same terms.

(2) As to the error in the claims

Article 10, Paragraph 11 of the Patent Claim No. 10 of the Patent Claim No. 10 of the Patent Claim No. 10 of the Patent Claim No. 10 of the Patent Claim No. 30-Consolidated Organization is a clerical error in the letter "27 through 34, 35, and 45". The plaintiff is aware that the above part is obvious, and the plaintiff was given an opportunity to correct it at the time of submission of the opinion and at the time of notification of the opinion and the request for adjudgment, but did not correct it. Since the clerical error of the above part is obvious, anyone with ordinary knowledge in the art can not neglect the clerical error because he can clearly understand its meaning.

(3) Therefore, the patent application invention of this case is not accompanied by the description and does not meet the requirements under Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act, and thus its registration should be rejected.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

(1) The patent application invention of this case is characterized by combination slopes (23.24) for combination and upper tiers (24) for combination, including slopes (4.14) in the intersections (15 to 22), and slopes (35.45) in the intersections (35 to 45) and slopes (27 through 34), and the second tiers (3) for combinations (23.24). These technical features are written in the specification and drawings of the patent application invention of this case to the extent that those with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the patent application invention of this case belongs can be fully understood.

(2) For 25,26 of the drawing code, the sign "scams for a combined organization", "scams for a combined organization", "scams for a combined organization", "scams for a combined organization", "scams for a combined organization", "scams for a combined organization", "scams for a combined organization", "scams for a non-consolidated organization" and "scams for a non-consolidated organization" are combined, but the sign "scams", "scams", "dus 2", "scams", and "scams 1" are intended to show more well the direction of the above company or slope, and rather, it is intended to clarify that the sign "scams for a combined organization" is used in combination with any other structure, and it is not easy for a person with ordinary knowledge in the art in question to understand any difference in the above terms as a result of the detailed execution of the invention in this case.

In addition, the term "combined" is used in the sense that it combines upper, lower, lower, and lower, and lower, while it is used in the sense that it connects former and lower, it should be interpreted in accordance with each situation, and the term "non-consolidated" can be interpreted differently depending on the circumstances, so it cannot be said that the term "non-connection" can be interpreted differently depending on the circumstances.

(3) In light of the detailed description and the description of the drawing(s) or the description(s) of the claims cited by the above claim(s), the scope of claims is obvious that it is a clerical error of 27 to 34, 35 and 45. Thus, there is no difficulty for a person having ordinary knowledge in the art in question to clearly understand and implement the meaning.

(4) The fact that the meaning of some of the statements in the detailed description that the defendant's additional grounds for invalidation are unclear is not mentioned in the notification of submission of opinions and the notification of the reasons for refusal, and that the "organization in the ordinary plane" in paragraph (13) of the scope of claims is obvious to be a clerical error in the ordinary plane structure, and thus, it cannot be said that

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The specification of the invention in the instant case is anticipated to cause confusion in terms defined in the drawings code as a result of the combination of multiple different terms with regard to “25, 26,” and “4 or 14,” thereby understanding the technical composition and scope of rights of the invention in the instant case.

(2) Claim Nos. 10 and 11 are written in the text of the drawing, and even if it is obvious that it is written in writing, it cannot be said that it is not written in writing.

(3) The detailed description of the invention in the patent application of this case is consistent with the arrangement of detailed expressions in which the object to be instructed is unknown [each of the two combined expressions(3) , 12 13 , 12 , 12 , 3 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 13 , 14 , 13 , 14 , 13 , 14 , , 13 , , 14 , , , , , , , , , , , and , , , , , , in the parallel direction of the invention in this case.]. It is difficult for a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to grasp the technical composition of the invention in this case.

(4) The claim No. 12 specifies "service loss" as "service loss" which is substantially the same term, and it is unclear that the composition of the invention is made, and the claim No. 13 states "the flat structure of the job in which the word is cited" as "the flat structure of the job in which the word is not consistent with the normal composition of the job in which the word is cited" and it is difficult to clearly understand what the matter to be protected is.

(c) Markets:

(1) Therefore, we first examine whether the application invention in this case uses different terms as to ① the same code ("25, 26" and "4 or 14") among the reasons for the decision of refusal as to the invention in this case, and ② whether the specification is inconsistent with the clerical error ("27 through 37, 38 or 48") in the claim No. 10.

Article 42 (2) 1 through 3 of the Patent Act provides that the patent application shall be accompanied by the specification stating "the title of the invention", "the detailed description of the invention", "the scope of a patent claim", and "the necessary drawings and abstract", and Article 42 (3) of the Patent Act provides that "the detailed description of the invention" shall state the purpose, composition and effect of the invention to the extent that it can be easily carried out by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains, and the above "the scope of a patent claim" shall state the matters to be protected in an application which is 1 or 2, and the claim shall be supported by "the detailed description of the invention", "the description of the invention shall be clearly and concisely stated in an application which is not accompanied by the specification 9 of the patent application, and it shall be stated in an ordinary description to the extent that it can not be easily understood by a third party in the specification, and it shall be stated in the specification with a different description and specification from the description to the extent that it can not be easily understood by the description."

(2) First of all, we examine whether or not the entry is not made due to the use of different terms in relation to ① drawings code 25, 26 and 4 or 14.

The specification of the invention in this case is "25,26 of the drawing code" 1 and 26 of the scope of claims 1 and paragraph 4 of the same Article, "25,26 of the combined organization" (3rd 12, 16 parallel 5, 11, 12) and "25, 26 of the combined organization (26)" (11 1, 12 parallel 2, 4 and 17 pages), and "15, 26 of the combined organization" (25, 26 of the invention in this case) are used for the same term as the two different terms of the above specifications, "25, 26 of the combined organization" (12, 8), and "25, 26, 26, 12, 26, 12, 26, 25, 26, 26, 26, 2, and 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, ., ., . of the combined.....................

In addition, the specification of the invention of this case is 1 to 20 .2 'the combination of 1 to 14' and 2 'the combination of 4 to 14' and 'the combination of 1 to 2 'the combination of 2 'the above specifications' (1 to 4 'the combination of 2 'the combination of 14 'the combination' and 14 'the combination of 2 'the combination of 4 'the above specifications' are not 'the combination of 2 'the combination of 4 'the above specifications' and 'the combination of 14 'the combination of 2 'the two 'the combination of 4 'the above specifications' are not 'the combination of 14 'the combined drawings' and 14 'the combination of 17 'the combination of 17 'the combined drawings' are 'the combination of 14 'the combined specifications' and 14 'the combination of the two 'the combined specifications'.

Therefore, the specification of the invention in this case is not clear about the term "25, 26" and "4 or 14" as to the drawing code in the drawing, and the meaning of the two terms is used in combination with other four to five terms, and the specification of the invention in this case is very unclear about the technical content and scope to be protected as a patent right because the content of the invention in this case cannot be easily known to a third party. Accordingly, the detailed description of the invention in this case is difficult to see that the detailed description of the invention in this case is written to the extent that a person with ordinary technological understanding in the art in this case can accurately understand and reproduce it, so it is against Article 42 (3) of the Patent Act, and it is difficult to see that the invention in this case is clearly and concisely written, and it is against Article 42 (4) of the Patent Act.

(3) Next, we examine whether or not there is any error in the text of paragraph (10) of the claim.

The claim(10) of the invention claimed in this case contains the composition of "non-consolidated organizational ties (4 through 14, 15 through 22, 27 through 37, 38 through 48)". As to the precise meaning and scope of "non-consolidated organizational ties" as to the detailed description of the specification of the invention in this case, since there are no particular descriptions in the detailed description of the specification of the invention in this case, the technical scope and contents of the above composition are only to be grasped by the drawings attached to the drawing indicated in general title. However, since the drawings attached to the application do not entirely indicate "46 or 48, which is part of the above drawing code," the technical composition cannot be easily known. Accordingly, the claim(10) did not clearly conclude the claim(s) as it violates Article 42(4) of the Patent Act.

In this regard, in light of the entire specification and drawings, such as the detailed description of the invention claimed in this case or the claim(s) cited in paragraph(10) of the claim(s) of this case, where the elements related to the subparagraph(s) of the above specification are described as performing the same functions as one group(s) 27 through 34, 35 through 45(s), the part(s) in the above specification cannot be easily seen as '27 through 37, 38 through 48' in the above specification code as '27 through 34, 35 through 45'. Thus, the claim(s) 10 does not state any difficulty in clearly understanding and executing the meaning of the invention in this case as it is difficult for anyone who has ordinary knowledge in the pertinent technical field to understand and implement it. However, even if the detailed description of the specification or the claim(s) of this case are examined, it cannot be readily concluded that there is any error in the above specification and the part(s) related to non-organization connection with the above specification as an average person(s) 27 through 345 through 's.

(4) Accordingly, the invention in this case uses different terms as to ① the same code ("25, 26" and "4 or 14") within the detailed description and the scope of the claims, and the meaning of the terms is not clear, and eventually, it is difficult to clearly understand the contents and scope of the rights. ② Since there is any error in the drawings code ("27 through 37, 38 or 48" in the scope of claims 10, the invention in this case is in violation of Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act. Accordingly, the registration of the invention in this case should be refused without further examining the existence of the remaining grounds for the decision of refusal by the defendant. Accordingly, the decision in this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)