01. Scope of application under Article 10-3 of the Patent Act;

Article 10-3 of the Patent Act provides that an amendment to the scope of a patent claim shall not be deemed an amendment to the substance of the specification within the scope of the original specification or drawing(s). Where it is impossible to obtain a patent because only the first specification and drawing(s) alone is unclear or a new amendment is changed to the substance of the invention, it shall not apply.

Article 10-3 of the Patent Act

Pos U.S. Patent Attorney Yu-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 396 No. 396 (Remand 12, 1989) dated November 30, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the main invention of this case is related to a DNA location device by PABX telephone alteration. In the patent application under the Patent Act, the detailed description of the first specification of the original invention is limited to the description of the first specification from 1 to 15 degrees among the drawings of 20 degrees 1 to 20 degrees ; even if the description and drawings are unclear, the term used is unclear, and it is unclear that the overall composition, function, and effect of the circuit angle are unclear; therefore, it is not possible to obtain a patent from the first specification and drawings. Further, according to the first written correction on July 10, 1982, the main description of the amended claims is not clearly explained in the first specification, and it cannot be seen that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the first specification or modification of the drawings. Even if the above revised contents were to be seen, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the first specification or modification of the drawings.

In addition, the provision of Article 10-3 of the Patent Act provides that an amendment to the scope of a patent claim shall not be deemed to fall under the amendment to the substance of the specification within the scope of the original specification or drawing. The amendment in this case is not lawful solely on the basis of the fact that the matters relating to the above comparison device (314), 315) are included in the drawings 16 degrees attached to the initial application, because it is not possible to obtain a patent because the substance of the invention is unclear solely with the initial specification and drawing(s) or a new amendment is deemed to fall under the change to the substance

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.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)