(a)The case holding that (a) the invention cannot be deemed to be an invention different from the patented invention on the ground that the starting material, the reaction material and the target material are the same as the patented invention, and the manufacturing method is also the same as the patented invention in the technical idea and the core composition of the patented invention; although there exists any difference between the addition process and the manufacturing method, it is merely a process that can be easily added by the tolerance technology with the well-known extra process, and it is difficult to deem the operation effect to be more favorable or remarkably improved than the effect caused by adding the known tolerance technology;

(a)The case holding that (a) the invention cannot be deemed to be an invention different from the patented invention on the ground that the starting material, the reaction material and the target material are the same as the patented invention, and the manufacturing method is also the same as the patented invention in the technical idea and the core composition of the patented invention, even though there exists any difference in the addition process, it is merely a process that can be easily added by the tolerance technology with the well-known extra process, and it is difficult to be more favorable or remarkably improved than the effect by adding the widely known tolerance technology;

Articles 6(2) (see current Article 29(2) and 57 (see current Article 97) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 12, 1990)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

1. Act on the Protection of Specific Substances (Patent Attorney Yoon Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The case where the plaintiff et al. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 95Na229 dated May 31, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, while comparing the invention of this case (patent registration No. 1 omitted) with the invention of this case by the claimant, both inventions are identical with the starting material and objective material by manufacturing the interpropinary fluor (Ⅰ), but (Ga) inventions add the manufacturing process by the general formula (Ⅳ), which results in blocking C-3 locations by reactioning AlCl3 to the starting material, to the manufacturing process of the invention of this case, which results in the general formula (Ⅳ) which is the same as the patented invention of this case, which results in a difference between the patented invention of this case and the manufacturing process of the patented invention of this case and the manufacturing process of the patented invention of this case, which is higher than the patented invention of this case, (Ga) inventions are more efficient than the patented invention of this case. Thus, the court below determined that there is no difference between the manufacturing process of this case and the patented invention of this case, which can be found to have the effect of establishing the patented invention of this case, and there is no difference between the manufacturing process of this case and the manufacturing process of this case.

2. According to the record, the patented invention of this case is related to the manufacturing method of 7-Amino-1-Lisolo-4-Lisolosolo-4-Lisolodin-N-3-carbol acid (quiine). The claim(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)-3-carbin acid-3-carbin acid-(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)-(s)(s)(s)(s)-(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)-1-4(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)-1-4)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)-1-4)(s)(s)(s)(s)-1-1-4)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s))))(s))(s)))(s)(s)))(s)(s))(s)(s))))(s)))(s))))(s)(s))(s)))))(s)))(s)))(s)))))(s.-1-1-1-1-4)(s)(s))(s.

[This, in general formula (II), A is CR3, R3 is L-H, X is C-H, X is especially C-L, and R is a starting material where hydrogen is hydrogen, 1-Sroprocoppropy-7-loro-6-prop-pline-1, 4-dilosophine-3-diviet acid, NR4 where R1 and R2 are attached in general formula (III), 6 won is formed with the NR4 where R4 is attached, and 1-solocoppropy-7-1-4(1)-4-4-diviol acid-4-diviol acid in general formula (I).

Furthermore, in relation to the patented invention of this case and the (a) invention, both inventions use the same starting material ("1- chropropy pro-7-Cloro-6 lusoloro-1, 4-dilololoro-4-dilolosophine-3-carbane acid") as the same starting material ("Plostro") and reaction the same reaction material (Plostro) to the location of the above starting material C-7 and obtain the same target material (Hlulululuxio). However, while the patented invention of this case is directly reactioned to the starting material and obtains the target material by directly responding to the skin, it can be known that (a) invention of this case contains "AlCl3, and (a) invention contains "chlorateal acid" in the manual of the start material, and that there is a difference between the target material and the reaction material in this middle part.

Thus, unless there is any difference between the starting material and the target material are identical and the technical composition of both inventions added to the composition of the middle body, it is necessary to prove that both inventions are different in terms of the action effect by the addition process of the formation of the middle body. In the invention of subparagraph (a), the claimant has the effect of improving the ratio of the target material and making it into a condition more alleviated than the reaction condition by promoting chemical reaction in the location of C-7. Thus, the claimant claims that (a) invention has the effect of improving the ratio of the target material and making it into a condition more alleviated than the reaction condition.

(A) In light of the fact that: (a) No. 11 and No. 12 of the Act merely did not find any material that the above Aluminium works as a promotion agent in the invention; and (b) it is not appropriate to find out any material that the above Aluminium works as a promotion agent; (a) evidence No. 11 and No. 12 of the Act is different from the chemical compounds of the invention; and (a) the location of the amination affected by the protective flag is greater than that of the invention; (a) the above evidence alone cannot be readily concluded that the aminy effect exists in the invention; (b) there are no other material to find that there is no other record-based reaction on the invention; and (c) it is not appropriate to readily respond only to a particular aminium reaction within a single chemical compound; and (d) it is not possible to find out the content of the invention as an interim reaction to the extent that the aminium becomes more widely known at the time of its temporary reaction by the protective flag.

(A) After all, the technical idea and core elements of the invention of this case are the same in that the starting material, reaction material, and target material are the same as the patented invention of this case and the manufacturing method thereof is also identical to the patented invention of this case, and the reaction reaction mechanism of the patented invention of this case is used as it is in combination with the c-7 location of the reaction material, which is the reaction material of this case. However, although (a) the invention of this case differs from the starting material in addition to the composition that goes through the intermediate body by reaction an alzlorate reaction to the alzlorate aluminium, it seems that the addition process is nothing more than the process that can be easily added by widely known tolerance technology (the use of the protective apparatus) if it is a person with ordinary knowledge in the technology to which both inventions of this case belong, and its operation effect is difficult to be seen to have been more than or remarkably improved due to addition of widely known tolerance technology, the invention of this case cannot be deemed to fall within the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case.

In addition, according to the records, the method of manufacturing an intermediate body by reaction Aluminium aluminium, etc. to a starting material, and the method of manufacturing a spaculluium by reactioning spacin with an intermediate body as a starting material is recognized as having obtained a patent [patent registration number 2 omitted) and (patent registration number 3 omitted], but such manufacturing method cannot be deemed as not falling under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case because the (Ga) invention is different from the patented invention of this case, and does not fall under the scope of the patent invention of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the (Ga) invention is different from the patent invention of this case on the ground that the effects of both inventions are different due to differences in the manufacturing process as to whether both inventions pass through the middle body without any particular ground. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of the scope of patent right, failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the decision, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court corresponding to the original decision. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)