In a trial for confirmation of the scope of the right to register a utility model, whether the subject matter for confirmation of the scope of the right is an open space or not is required.

It is not necessary to determine whether the scope of the right of the utility model right is an official announcement of the subject matter because it is merely to determine the scope of the right in relation to the specific facts, not to determine the form and structure of the object belonging to the scope of the technical device.

Article 28 of the Utility Model Act, Article 147 of the Patent Act

Egylgrapher

Completion

Patent Country

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Patent Court's appeal.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the appellant (appellant) and the answer by the respondent (Respondent).

According to the reasoning of the original decision as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, since the court below acknowledged the scope of the right only to the part forming an industrial device of a new term type of punishment, which is practicable, in determining the scope of the right to the original utility model right, against the existing utility model right, and in determining the scope of the right, the court below held that the claimant's claim for a new term of utility model right cannot be recognized as an independent right on the ground that the part of the new term type of punishment, which is the nature of not allowing the process and confirmation of the circumstances at the time of the examination at the time of the application by the registration application as to the utility model right, as in the case of the utility model right, is recognized as a public notice according to the records attached to the written request for permission of correction, which is a part of the previous term attached to the written request for

However, the confirmation of the scope of a utility model right does not determine the combination condition of the form and structure of the goods that fall within the scope of a technical device, but the scope of the right is to determine the effects of a specific fact, i.e., the scope of the effect of the right, and it is not to determine the scope of the utility model right in a specific relationship with a specific fact. However, it is not necessary to determine whether the object for confirmation of the scope of the right is an official notice or not. Thus, as shown above, the court below did not decide whether the object for confirmation of the scope of the right is an official notice or not, which is the object of confirmation of the scope of the right, belongs to the scope of the claimant's utility model right. However, the court below rejected the claimant's claim on the ground that the malicious part is publicly notified and the building itself is not independent right. Therefore, the original decision is improper and the ground for appeal is without merit, and the answer is without merit. It is necessary to judge all other parts of the court below's decision by the assent of all Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Magman (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak and Mag-Jak Ling Ling Ling-Jing Ling Ling