Methods of interpreting the scope of claims to determine the contents of a patented invention subject to new and advanced determination;

Article 42(2) of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3625 Decided October 25, 2007

Furthermore, Cambodia (Law Firm Il-gu, Patent Attorney Cho Sung-gu, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 201Heo2091 Decided September 30, 2011

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

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

1. The scope of a patent application contains a description that the patent applicant intends to be protected as a patented invention, so the confirmation of the invention subject to newness and inventiveness shall be based on the description of the claim.

However, since the technical meaning of the claim can be understood accurately by taking into account the detailed description of the invention or the drawings, etc., the matters stated in the claim shall be based on the general meaning of the text, and shall be objectively and reasonably interpreted objectively and rationally after considering the technical significance of the invention to express by the text, taking into account the detailed description, drawings, etc. of the invention.

However, even if the detailed description, drawings, etc. of the invention are considered, it is not permissible to limit or expand the scope of claims pursuant to other description, such as the detailed description, drawings, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu3625, Oct. 25, 2007, etc.).

2. The lower court determined that, in light of the meaning of the term “area” defined in the detailed description of the invention claimed in the instant patent application No. 10-207-701050 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim No. 1”) as amended on August 3, 2009, the term “No. 2” includes all subordinate conceptual forms that can be extended in multiple directions due to the oil of multiple directions in the instant patent application No. 2, including Section 2, and that, on the ground that it cannot be supplemented or interpreted as “the oil of multiple sectors located in one component (second component)” and that the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 cannot be construed as a single element (two domains) extending the number of sections 1 and two different sections in the instant patent application No. 2.

On such premise, the lower court determined that the instant Claim No. 1 invention was denied by comparable invention 1, inasmuch as the instant Claim No. 1 starts with a single implementation form, which is included in the elements 1 and 2 of the instant Claim No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and thus, its composition and effect are identical to that of the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of claims.

3. 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 Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)