In a case where Company A claimed a patent invalidation trial against Company B on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patented invention was denied against the patentee B of the patented invention named “aululululul for photographing in body,” but the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the patent, the case affirming the judgment below that the nonobviousness of the patent claim of the above patented invention was denied by the comparable invention, etc. using the name “electronic

Article 29(2) of the Patent Act

Manympics Co., Ltd. (Patent Firm Epia Apia Patent Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Engines already (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2012Heo6168 Decided February 28, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The scope of protection of a patented invention is, in principle, determined based on the claims. However, in cases where the technical composition of the patented invention is unknown or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even though such description alone, supplement may be made by other descriptions in the specification. However, even in such cases, an extension of the scope of claims is not allowed due to other descriptions in the specification, and in cases where the technical scope is apparent solely based on the descriptions in the scope of claims, limited interpretation of the scope of claims may not be made by other descriptions in the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Hu2377, Feb. 10, 201; 2010Hu2605, Mar. 29, 2012).

2. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted) Claim 1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Claim 1 invention of this case,” and other claims are denied by the same method as the cited invention 1, 4, and 5 as indicated in the lower judgment on the following grounds: (a) the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted) of this case, which is subordinate to Claim 1 invention, is also denied; and (b) the instant patent invention of this case, which is a subordinate to Claim 1 invention, is also denied.

1) First, in light of the general meaning of the above terms and the detailed description of the patented invention in this case, the term “Bisung Sea” in paragraph (1) of this case shall be deemed to have limited to the shape of “the Red Sea,” i.e., the shape of “Biology,” which was recorded as a window where light can be administered, to the shape of “Biology,” and it shall not be interpreted to have limited to “the part designed to pass through the light in the actual operation process.” Thus, the above composition shall not be interpreted to have limited to only the shape “the part designed to pass through the light.” Thus, the above composition shall be made in the form of luminous, such as glass, etc. to facilitate the photographing of the observed body, and it shall be made in the direction where the biologic and luminousene are located, i.e., the form indicated in the specification of the invention 1 in the shape of the Red Sea, namely, the shape is 10 square meters in the composition of the following numbers.

2) Next, the composition of the instant Claim 1 invention “a lighting system does not pass through the lighting system and does not indicate that the lighting source is self-known to a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”). In other words, the composition of the instant Claim 1 invention is merely a technical formula that “it is difficult to achieve desirable photographing conditions by directly passing through the lighting source in the luminous system where the half of the lighting source from the observation body is in the course of photographing the photography,” and there is no specific indication in the specification of the instant Patent invention on the position of lighting source and light system and relative location, and thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the light from the perspective of the art in which the lighting source already started to go through the center of the lighting system is located in the vicinity of the lighting system (i.e., where the lighting source is not substantially passing through the lighting system).” Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the foregoing type of light from the perspective of the lighting source and the light from the perspective of the light source in which the lighting source already occurred.”

3) In addition, the phrase “the composition where lighting and luminous system is assigned after the Red Sea of this case,” of the Claim 1 of this case, is widely interpreted as being in place of lighting and luminous system after the red sea of the above meaning when considering the general meaning of the above terms and the detailed description of the description of the patented invention of this case, and it cannot be interpreted that “the lighting source and luminous system are located after the flat side of the red sea of the red sea or at least the part designed to pass through in the actual operating process, i.e., the light in the actual operating process,” and thus, the composition of the above Claim 1 of the cited Invention 1 of the cited invention 1 of the semiconductor of semiconductor (the photographer (1) was attached to the front side of the red sea of this case, and the shape of the red sea of which is already started in the form of 10 square meters (10 square meters) as the luminous and luminous luminous 3).

4) Furthermore, in the specification of comparable invention 1, the description of the comparable invention 1 contains “the page of the PP chip”, which is a technical language for the electrical connection on the device board of semiconductor chip. Thus, a person ordinarily skilled in the composition of the comparable invention 1, which is initiated only by a light user, is combining the composition of the comparable invention 1, which consists of multiple ods (p-ns) which is a basic element of semiconductor 4, and the composition of a group of telods (p-ns) which is composed of multiple ods (p-ns) of the semiconductors of comparable invention 4, thereby sufficiently discovering that it can be possible for more than two lightings of the composition 1-3-B of the original judgment. Accordingly, there is no special technical difficulty in combining the above composition of the comparable invention 1 with the comparable invention 4.

5) In addition, the remainder of the instant Claim Nos. 1 is all initiated in comparable inventions 1, 4, and 5, or can easily be derived therefrom, and there is no special technical difficulty in combining these elements.

6) Meanwhile, as long as the meaning of “a composition where lighting sources and luminous systems are placed subsequent to the Red Sea of Mine” and “a composition where lighting sources and luminous systems are interpreted as above, it shall be deemed that the effects of photographing the lighting source in an appropriate lighting name and the effects of reducing or removing light samples generated from the internal reflect from the luminous creativity and the effects of reducing or removing light samples generated from the luminous creativity, so the effects of the instant Claim No. 1 invention in this case are likely to be predicted from comparable inventions 1, 4, and 5, and are not remarkable.

B. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the scope of claims and the determination of inventive step.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)