[1] The method of interpreting the technical scope in a case where the description of the claim is excessively broad in light of the contribution of the invention described in the detailed description of the invention

[2] The case holding that the design of subparagraph (a) of the "slves slves" does not fall within the scope of the right in the registered device because the technical field, purpose, composition and effect of the plan are different from that of the registered device and its technical field, purpose, composition and effect

[1] The claim shall be supported by the detailed description of the invention. Thus, if the description of the claim is excessively broad in light of the degree of contribution of the invention described in the detailed description, such description is unlawful as it violates Article 8(4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) and thus, it shall be limited to the invention described in the claim, even if it is patented without such defect, to the extent that it is supported by the detailed description of the invention.

[2] The case holding that the design of subparagraph (a) related to "slves slves" does not fall under the scope of the right in the registered device because the technical field, purpose, composition and effect of the plan are different from that of the registered device and its technical field, purpose, composition and effect

[1] Articles 8(4), 29, and 42 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of Sep. 23, 1998), Article 8(4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 8(4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 35 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 5577 of Sep. 23, 1998), Article 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1088 delivered on May 22, 1998

Equitables

White-ju (Patent Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 25, 2003

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on October 31, 2002 on the case No. 1435 of 2001 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence A 1 to 3]

A. The registered complaint of this case

(1) The Plaintiff is a holder of the instant registered complaint (registration No. 1484.11, Oct. 9, 1996, and March 17, 1999) with the name of “Non-slip sheet”, and is a right holder of the instant registered complaint (registration No. 1484.11, Oct. 9, 196, 199).

(2) The registered device of this case is related to slocks, which do not cause any misunderstandings to the table table, dispute table, etc., and the scope of the application for registration is as follows.

"Slocks consisting of co-rating 30 square meters (30) on the surface of the crating opening floor (40) on the surface of the crating opening floor which consists of metal board, synthetic resin board, rubber board, etc. and which can be equipped with a non-permanent printing floor (20)."

(b) (a) A device;

The specifications in the attached Form 2 and the specifications in the attached Form 2 (a) shall be as follows.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

The Plaintiff filed a petition against the Defendant for an affirmative confirmation of the scope of rights within the scope of the instant petition, since the instant petition for registration and its technical composition and effects are identical to the instant petition for registration, and the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition on October 31, 2002 on the grounds as follows: (a) the instant petition for registration and its technical composition and effects were identical; and (b) the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered a trial decision as to the scope of rights

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

(1) The registered device of this case provides slocks to prevent the misshion, etc. of the table table, and (a) the device of subparagraph (a) provides a slock, which is well-contained with the floor, can be moved with a slick, and can be moved with a slick, while the two devices are different from the technical task and purpose.

(2) The structure of the printing floor (20), the co-building opening (30), and the slive story (40), respectively, of the instant registered device (Ga), shall be identical to the structure of the printing floor (200), the co-building opening (300), and the slive story (400), respectively. However, the structure of the sets (10) composed of metal plates, etc. among the instant registered device, cannot be found in the instant registered device (Ga). However, as the components corresponding to the location of the instant registered device, there are white-printed stories (200a), which are designed to make the upper slive pattern more clearly, but there are different materials and uses in the instant registered device (10) structure. Moreover, since (Ga) design is intended to make the upper slive thickness, there is no need for the composition of the sets, such as the instant registered device, and thus, there is no equivalent composition.

(3) The instant registered device consists of both the highest floor and the lowest floor (40). However, (a) the device consists of the highest floor with the Mas-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s-to-s-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s-to-s

(4) Accordingly, (a) a Subparag. (a) device does not fall within the scope of the right in the instant petition for registration, since there is no essential element of the instant petition for registration, nor any organic combination relation between them, or there is no equivalent relation to the elements corresponding thereto.

2. The parties' assertion on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

(1) The registered device of this case and the (a) design of this case are the same technical purpose and action effect as inasmuch as they aim to make the lowest floor of the set form the paton as the paton part of the paton part of the floor so that it can not be easily satoned from the floor.

(2) The part of the PVC of synthetic resin trial (10) and (a) of the instant registered device is composed of the same material, and the part of the Masping of P.P materials (100) of the instant registered device.

(3) (a) The white printing layer (200a) of the device does not appear on the registered device of this case, but is merely a structure that can easily select a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field in question.

(4) The fact that the instant registered complaint is used to prevent a slicker from spreading the table table to the table is merely an example of use as long as the computer was generalized.

(5) (A) The instant registered device is identical to the instant registered device, its purpose, composition, and effect, and thus falls under the scope of the right to the instant registered device.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The slocks in the instant registered device are likely to prevent slocks, slocks, and slicks from being slicked between the upper part and the lower part. However, the slocks in the instant registered device did not use any slick container at all on the upper part, and the slocks can be easily slicked using PVC, P.P. materials, etc. Therefore, the two devices are entirely different from the technical field, purpose, and composition.

(2) The registered device of this case and the (a) design of this case are different in composition and manufacturing method of each of the co-rating floors and sleep layers.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Criteria for determination

If the claim of a patented invention consists of multiple elements, it is not protected as a whole as a whole, and each element is not protected independently. Thus, if the (a) invention compared to the patented invention has only a part of the essential elements as stated in the claim of the patented invention, and the remainder of the elements is lacking, in principle, it does not fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention (Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu617 Decided June 15, 2001).

B. Preparation for the registered device of this case against (A) and (a) design of this case

(i)technology and purpose;

The registered device of this case is related to a slock which makes it difficult to attract a studio to the table table, the dispute team, etc. The design of this case is for the purpose of clocking a transparent slick layer to prevent the misslick layers from being slicked by the container on both sides or one side of the board style. On the other hand, (a) the design of this case is related to computer slicks, and it is for providing a convenient slick slick tablet which is used by reducing the thickness of the slick and floor, and the above slickt should be prevented from slicking the slick with the slick which is placed on the board, and it should be prevented from slicking the floor of the slick, and it is common between the two devices that are applied to the device and the device of the slick and the device of the slick.

(2) Composition

(A) Essential elements of the instant registered appeal

In the case of the essential elements of the registered device of this case, the term "printed story (20) in the form of "printed story (10)" can be equipped with sets (10). Thus, the above printing story (2) is merely merely a voluntary component, and it is difficult to regard it as an essential element of the registered device of this case.

In addition, the co-rating opening (30) consists of "awning or a single surface" of the sets (10) and is written in the claims, so the composition of the above co-rating opening (30) which is required at least to the proposal for the registration of the instant case is interpreted as forming the "one-day surface" of the first sets (10) without asking its location.

However, in order to determine whether a patent falls under the scope of the patent right, the scope of the patent right should be determined on the basis of the scope of the patent right. In principle, the scope of the patent right or the actual scope of the patent right should be determined on the basis of the claims stated in the specification attached to the patent application. However, in a case where the technical composition of the patent is unknown or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even if the description alone is unknown, it is possible to supplement the patent by other statements in the specification, but even if it is impossible to determine the technical scope, it is not allowed to expand the scope of the patent by other statements in the specification. In addition, in a case where the technical scope is apparent only by the description of the claims, it is not possible to interpret the claims by limiting the description of the claims by other statements in the specification. Meanwhile, in light of the degree of contribution of the invention described in the detailed description, if the description of claims is excessively broad, such provision violates Article 8(4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990). 988).

According to the detailed description of the device within the registered device of this case, the registered device of this case is composed of 30 studios (10 studios) and the 1studios (10 studios)'s studios (10 studios)'s studios and 30 studios (10 studios)'s studios (30 studios)'s studios (10 studios)'s studios and 40 studios' studios (40 studios)'s studios and 30 studios' studios' studios (10 studios)'s studios and studios' studios' studios' 20 studios' 20 studios.

Therefore, the claims in the instant registered complaint stating the purport that the co-rating opening floor (30) is composed of "the 10th square or the 10th square or the 10th square or the 10th square or the 10th square or the upper 10th square or the upper 10th square or the upper 10th square or the upper 30th square or the upper 10th square or the upper 10th square or the upper 10th 10th 10th 30th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 30th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 30th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 20

From this point of view, examining the essential elements of the registered complaint of this case as indicated in the claims, it is divided into ① metal board, synthetic resin board, rubber board, etc. (10) (hereinafter referred to as “instant composition 1”), ② Crating openings (30 hereinafter referred to as “instant organization”) composed of upper surface of the set (10), ③ Crating openings (30 hereinafter referred to as “the instant organization”) composed of codings (40 hereinafter referred to as “Organization 3 of this case”).

(B) Composition 1 of this case

The composition 1 of this case is composed of metal plates, synthetic resin plates, rubber plates, etc. (10) which correspond to the Mabroto floor (100) where (a) Mabroto floor (100) devices are not linked to (100) devices. The two components are composed of the co-rating opening floor formed on the upper part or the lower part and the lub floor (the flag floor) of the lusium (the materials of which include synthetic resin) and are similar to each other; however, (a) the Mabroto floor (100) where the Mabroto(a) device directly contact with the Mabro, but the Mabro does not have a function of inducing the Mabro from the Mabro; however, the function of the composition 1 of this case is different from the composition 1 of this case.

(C) Composition 2 of this case

The composition 2 of this case is the co-rating openings (30) formed on the upper side of the sets (10), which correspond to the co-rating openings (300) of the (Ga), and the two compositions are to supplement the co-rating openings (10) or Maspings (100) and Maspings (40,400). The function of this case is the same, but the co-rating openings (300) of the (Ga) device is formed on the upper side of the sets (10), while the co-rating openings (300) of the (Ga) device is formed on the lower side of the Maspings (100). Accordingly, there is a difference in the location, and as such, there is a difference in the effect of this case, as seen later.

(D) Composition of this case 3

The composition 3 of this case is the 40th floor of the co-rating openings (30) which is composed of the co-ratings (40) which is the component corresponding to the slive floor (400) of the slives (a) device. The two components are the same material and function as the slives in order to prevent the slives from being slives with the objects in contact with the slives (400). However, while the slives (a) device was formed on the slives (10), the slives (400) of the slives (100) form the slives of the slives (100), the slives (100) form the slives of the slives-wing openings (300). Accordingly, the slives (100) form the slives).

(iii)Effect;

The registered device of this case is composed of metal board, synthetic resin board, rubber board, etc. (10), and it has a function to prevent the smoke of objects, such as luscams and cups, which are put to the upper part of the luscam, and the luscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscams (300), and the luscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscams (100), and the luscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, (a) The design of this case is different from the design of this case and its technical field and purpose, and unlike the design of this case, the printing story (200) is an essential element. Unlike the design of this case, there is a difference in the arrangement of the elements compared to the essential elements of the registered device of this case, and the effect of its operation differs accordingly, (a) the design of this case does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered device of this case. Accordingly, the decision of this case is justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)