(a)The case holding that (a) invention is an invention different from the patented invention, inasmuch as (a) invention has a significant improvement in its effect on the Arhesion rate, etc. compared to the patented invention even though the Arherherology that serves as a starting material of the invention is one of the reaction elements of the Arrherherology stated in the patent claim of the patented invention;

The case holding that both of the patented invention and (a) invention are related to the method of manufacturing the target material 3-ASEAN-7-(A)-Pusanisanisan acid by reactioning the 7-Aminisan City acid to the Amination agents, and the (a) invention contains 1- [1- [2-Synn-Mean-Mean-Mean-(2-Aminan-4-day)-Isian xanisanium-(2-Isian-4)-Isian xanisanium-3 dMF compound described in the patent claim for the patented invention, even if the (2-Isian 2-(or 2-Isian)-4-2-Nsian xanisanisan acid, which is substantially equivalent to the patent claim for the patented invention, the (2) invention is included in the (2)-Isian response described in the patent claim for the patented invention, and the (2)-(A) invention is included in the (2)-Isian reaction reaction.

Articles 6 and 57 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 3325 of Dec. 31, 1980)

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu85 delivered on April 9, 1985 (Gong1985,732) 87Hu102 delivered on January 25, 1990 (190,533) 90Hu564 delivered on January 15, 1991 (191,753)

Hansan Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd., Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-som et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Rohyn Hahn Lyn Lynen Lynk, Counsel for the patent attorney-at-law and two others

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 159 dated April 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the respondent.

According to the original decision, the court below held that the invention (patent registration number omitted) filed on Nov. 12, 1981 and registered on Nov. 12, 1981 (patent registration number omitted) is capable of using the patented invention (patent registration number omitted) as an identical material for the purpose of using the patented invention (patent registration number No. 7-A. 2) with the structural formula (II) or its reaction factors, such as 3-A. Stockholm-7-(U.S. 2) invention (a) invention (patent reaction No. 7-U.S. 2) invention (patent reaction No. 1) as an identical material for the purpose of using the patented invention (patent reaction No. 2) as an identical material for the purpose of this case, and that there is no obvious difference between the patented invention and the patented-U.S. 2-U. 3-U.M. invention (patent reaction) invention as described in its reasoning, and there is no obvious difference in the patent reaction-U.S. 2-U.M-N. reaction reaction reaction in the initial invention.

In light of the record comparison, the above recognition by the court below is acceptable.

(A) 1- [the 2-(a) of 1- [the 2-syn-Stockholm-(2-Amino-4-day] - DMF compound [the above 2-(a)] of 2-(the 2-Amination-4-day Amination] of the patent claim of this case where the (a) invention is included in the upper concept of the patent claim of this case] - 2-(a) of the 2-(or the protected 2-Amino-4-day)-2-mersyn-Stockholm's response factors, and if the (a) invention is included in the patent claim of this case, the patent invention of this case does not have any other effect than the patent claim of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the 3-year converting effect of the patent invention of this case, and there is no obvious difference between the patent claim of this case and the patent invention of this case.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)