The meaning of "an amendment" and "an amendment to the summary" under Article 10-2(2) and (3) of the Patent Act.

"Correction" under Article 10-2 (2) and (3) of the Patent Act refers to an amendment to clarify the specification, etc. in cases where there is any defect or lack of specification, etc. in the documents, etc., and "revision of the summary" refers to an increase, decrease or change of the scope of the patent claims stated in the specification, and it refers to an increase, decrease or change of the scope of the patent claims stated in the specification, and it refers to a substantial change to the extent that its identity is not recognized, such as an addition of a new summary

Articles 10-2(2) and 10-2(3) of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu11 delivered on June 14, 1983, 84Hu125 delivered on May 12, 1987, 86Hu112 delivered on August 25, 1987

Modro Rocop (Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 431 decided July 10, 1986

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below stated that the original invention was a part of the initial specification of the drawings and there was no drawing to ascertain the summary of the original invention, but at the time of the patent application. However, since only the content stated in the initial specification of September 19, 1984, the specific composition for achieving the purpose of the original invention cannot be confirmed, and the effects of its operation cannot be easily presented by a person with ordinary knowledge in this field. Thus, the subsequent amendment of September 19, 1984 constitutes a modification of the main text, and therefore, this case's patent application cannot be viewed as a patent application that satisfies the requirements of Article 8 of the former Patent Act (Act No. 3325, Dec. 31, 1980) and Article 1 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 8498, Mar. 16, 197).

However, Article 10-2(2) and (3) of the Patent Act provides that a patent applicant may amend the specification or drawings attached at the time of the patent application within the period for submission of a written opinion as to the grounds for rejection to the extent that it does not change the substance of the specification initially accompanying the patent application. The phrase "an amendment as mentioned above" refers to an amendment to clarify the specification, etc. by clearly correcting the specification, etc. where there is any defect or deficiency in the documents, etc. in the specification, and "an amendment to the substance" refers to an increase, decrease, or a change in the scope of the patent application described in the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 83Hu11, Jun. 14, 1983). It refers to an increase, decrease, or a change in the scope of the initial patent application to the extent that its identity is not recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 83Hu11, Jun. 14, 198), and therefore, if there is a change in the substance that does not reach such degree, it shall not be deemed an amendment

According to the records, after the applicant filed a patent application for the original invention on May 21, 1981, on April 19, 1984, the applicant stated the drawings explanation from the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner to 17 degrees only in the simple explanation column of the drawings, but the detailed technical composition to achieve the purpose of the invention cannot be grasped because the detailed drawing of the original invention is not attached in the specification, and the subsequent effects cannot be recognized, after receiving notification of the grounds for rejection on September 19, 1984, within the submission period, the applicant submitted the written amendment and submitted the written amendment on September 19, 1984, and submitted the first through 17 degrees only in the simple explanation column of the drawings at the time of the initial application, and it is apparent that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to how the contents of the written amendment are different than those of the initial application and subsequent written amendment, and thus, it has to be examined without further deliberation. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)