[1] The meaning of the amendment and alteration of the substance of Article 10-3 of the former Patent Act

[2] The case holding that where several errors exist in the quantity of raw materials between the main text of the initial application and the separate description, it does not constitute an amendment to the main text that only the amount of raw materials as stated in the relevant application specification and the explanatory note should be modified

[1] The amendment stipulated in Articles 10-2 and 10-3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 190) refers to the amendment aimed at clarifying the specification, etc. by clearly correcting it in cases where there is any defect or deficiency in the documents such as the specification, etc., and the amendment refers to the increase, decrease, or modification of the scope of the patent claims described in the specification. The amendment refers to the increase, decrease, or modification of the scope of the patent claims described in the specification, and it does not constitute an alteration of the substance, such as the addition of a new summary, to the scope of the initial patent claims. If the amendment does not reach such a degree, it does not constitute an alteration

[2] The case holding that if a claimant amends the specification and subparagraph (a) because there are some contradictions and errors in the description and subparagraph (a) between the main text of a request for confirmation of the scope of a right and the explanatory note of the (a) invention, and only the amount of raw material ingredients are modified, such amendment is deemed to correspond to the description of the written request for adjudication and the description of subparagraph (a) attached thereto, and it is deemed that the amendment is to conform to the contents of the written request for adjudication and the item of the item of the item license as evidence of subparagraph (a). Thus, the above amendment is merely a clear statement of the incomplete description, a clerical error, correction, or unclear description, and it is not a change in the original specification, and it does not result in a substantial change in the substance, and therefore it is not a change in the substance.

[1] Articles 10-2 (see current Article 47), 10-3 (see current Article 48) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990); / [2] Articles 10-2 (see current Article 47) and 10-3 (see current Article 48) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Hu113 delivered on February 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 533) Supreme Court Decision 93Hu800 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2865) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu821 delivered on April 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1868)

D&P Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Appellant (Patent Attorney Choi Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94DaDa361 dated October 31, 1996

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below examined whether the initial (a) invention of this case and the amended (a) invention of this case are identical to the initial (a) invention of this case, and found that the first (a) invention of this case used 2.3 mllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll in the first (a) invention of this case among the ingredients of the raw material, but the amended (a) invention of this case has been prepared for 2.3mllllllllllllllllllllllll in the preparation stage of the drug, in the fourth process, in the last mixing process, and used 35mllllllllllllllllllll in the final process. Thus,

However, the amendment stipulated in Articles 10-2 and 10-3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) refers to the amendment aimed at clarifying the specification, etc. by clearly correcting the scope of the patent claims stated in the specification in cases where there is any defect or lack of specification, etc., and the amendment refers to the increase, decrease, or modification of the scope of the patent claims stated in the specification. The amendment refers to the increase, decrease, or modification of the scope of the patent claims filed in the first application, and it brings about a substantial change to the extent that the identity of the contents is not recognized. If the amendment does not reach that degree, it does not constitute a change of the substance (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Hu800, Sept. 27, 1994; 94Hu821, Apr. 14, 1995).

2. According to the records, (a) method of the written request for a trial of this case is about 940 m3m3, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.c., e., c., e., e., c., e., e., c., e., e., e., e. c. c. c., e., e., c., e., e., c., e., e. c., e., c., e., e. c., e., g., c., e., e., g., e., g., e., e., g., e., g., e., e.c. e.).; explaining; and explain examples examples.....;

However, when the claimant amends the statement, he stated that the ingredients of the raw material are used as it is, in the fourth process, 28 malate in the 4th process, and the 5th process that the melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's 35 mar. Furthermore, in the 4th process, he prepares for the amra 2.3 mar in the quantity of the raw material, and in the 4th process, the eth 28 mar in order to melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's melter's neck, and the eth 15 mar melter's melter's melter's melter's Y.

Thus, the above amendment of the specification of this case is deemed to be aimed at correcting the inconsistency between the contents of the written request for a trial and the contents attached thereto, and also at complying with the contents of the article 15 of the article 15 of the article 15 of the article 15 of the article 15 of this case. Thus, the above amendment is merely an clarifying a clerical error, correction, or unclear description of the incomplete specification, and it does not bring about a substantial change in the contents since the new substance of the original specification is not added. Thus, the above amendment cannot be deemed to be

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the amendment of the main points or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, since it is obvious that the court below affected the result of the decision, which points out this error is justified in the petition of appeal.

3. In addition, according to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, even if the use of a raw material medicine based on 1000 meters of final object was determined as a snowa (Ga) invention, the court below determined that the use of a raw material medicine based on 1000 meters of the final object is 67mm, 67m, 200m, and 67m, 200m, and 200m, respectively, at the preparation stage of raw material medicine; EL-mentol at the preparation stage; 3m, and 0.3m, at the 4m, at the preparation stage; 2.3m, at the 4m, at the preparation stage; and 28m, at the 4m, at the 5m, at the 4m, at the preparation stage, it is unclear that the request for a trial of this case was recorded as 35mm, and ultimately, at the 5m, it is an unlawful request for a trial for correction as to an ambiguous invention.

According to the records, the revised statement of (a) uses both L-mentor both at the preparation stage or at the fourth process, and at the preparation stage, 6.7mm and 20mm respectively at the preparation stage, and the fact-finding of this part of the court below is erroneous.

Meanwhile, according to the records and evidence No. 15, etc., it appears that the content of alter, sacrife and sacrife are different from each other in the preparation stage and execution stage. However, according to the records and evidence No. 15, it does not refer to the preparation before manufacturing medicines for the preparation stage in the statement No. 15, but it appears that the manufacturing stage refers to the manufacturing process of 100 mife and sacrife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife sife.

4. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)