[1] Method of determining the scope of the right of the utility model right, and method of interpreting the text of the claims

[2] The case where a claim concerning the scope of a request for registration is interpreted as an independent claim in the application for registration of a utility model

[1] In principle, the scope of the right to a utility model right or the substantial scope of protection shall be determined by the claims described in the specification accompanying an application filed for registration of a utility model. However, if the technical composition of a utility model is unknown or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even if the description is known, the supplement may be made by other descriptions in the specification. However, even in such a case, the extension of the scope of a utility model right is not allowed by other descriptions in the specification, and in a case where the technical scope is apparent only by other descriptions in the specification, the extension of the scope of a utility model right cannot be restricted by other descriptions in the specification, but in interpreting such claims, the meaning of terms ordinarily recognized in the relevant technical field shall be followed. If the meaning is unclear or the interpretation of the text is clearly unreasonable in light of other descriptions in the specification, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with the definition and equity by taking into account the legal stability of the intent of the applicant and the third parties.

[2] The case holding that although claims 1 and 2 of the registered appeal concerning the reinforcement device of the wall of a concrete structure are clearly different in their purpose and function effects, the phrase "in paragraph (1)" is used in paragraph (2), the phrase "in paragraph (1)" is used in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the claims concerning the automatic injection device, which is separate from the attachment sheet, and the expression "in paragraph (1)" in paragraph (2) is not limited to the enclosed attachment set referred to in paragraph (1), but the term "in paragraph (1)," which is the premise of paragraph (1), is interpreted to mean "in the reinforcement device of the wall of a building," which is the premise of paragraph (1), the whole meaning is not limited, but it is interpreted to mean "in the reinforcement device of the wall of a building," which is the premise of paragraph (1), the claims 2 of the registered appeal shall be interpreted to mean independent right that is independent from paragraph

[1] Article 57 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 97), Article 8 (4) and Article 29 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 8 (4) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Utility Model Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13079 of Aug. 28, 1990) (see current Article 1)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Hu585 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1167), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1809 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2279), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1908 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3082), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu258 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 9555), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1050 Delivered on December 6, 1996 (Gong197, 207), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu11985 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong196, 197, 207)

claimant

Patent Attorney No. Appellant (Patent Attorney No. Dual)

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 93Da376 dated May 31, 1996

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below stated in Paragraph (2) of the scope of the request for registration of a utility model of the registered device of this case (hereinafter "a reinforcement device of a wall surface of a concrete structure" in Article 48593 of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, July 3, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) as "a reinforcement device of a wall surface of a concrete structure with the characteristic of forming at least two main home parts among them by forming at least three original parts of the original parts of the attached set as set forth in Paragraph (1)", and it is not clear that the description itself is subordinate to Paragraph (1) of this case, and in light of the practice of subordinate clauses in the scope of claims, Paragraph (2) of this case is clearly different from that of the main part of the registered device of this case, since the longer part of the main part of the wall of this case is composed of at least 30 degrees through 70 degrees, and even if there is no technical difference between the main part and the main part of the device of this case.

In principle, the scope of the right of a utility model right or the substantial scope of protection shall be determined based on the matters described in the claims of a specification attached to an application for registration of a utility model. However, even if the technical composition of a utility model is unknown or unknown, if the technical scope can not be determined, a supplement may be made by other statements in the specification. However, even in such a case, the extended interpretation of the scope of a utility model right is not allowed by other statements in the specification, and even if the technical scope is apparent only by other statements in the specification, it may not be restricted by other statements in the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1908, Oct. 12, 1993).

However, in interpreting the text of such claims, the meaning of terms generally recognized in the relevant technical field shall be followed. If the meaning is unclear or the interpretation of the text is clearly unreasonable in light of the different description, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with the definition and equity, taking into account the contents of the application and the different description and the legal stability of the applicant’s intent and third parties.

According to the case's return to and the record, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the claims on the registration of this case clearly differ in the purpose or effect of the claim, and Paragraph (2) thereof use the expression "in paragraph (1)". However, the phrase "in paragraph (1)" is used in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the claims on automatic injection, a separate device, and the phrase "in paragraph (2)" means "in paragraph (1)," not limited to an isolated device under paragraph (1), but to the term "in reinforcement of the wall of a building" under paragraph (1), the premise under paragraph (1) is not limited to "in the reinforcement of the wall of a building". If a reasonable interpretation is made in accordance with the definition and equity, it shall be deemed that Paragraph (2) of the claims on the registration of this case means an independent right that is independent from paragraph (1) (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da5564, Aug. 11, 195).

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the claims No. 2 of the registered complaint of this case were dependent claims No. 1 based only on the formal text of the claims stated in the registered complaint of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of claims, and since it is obvious that this affected the result of the trial decision, there is a ground to point this out.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court under Article 3 (3) of the Addenda of the Utility Model Act (No. 4893 of January 5, 1995). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)