[1] In determining whether an invention is ineligible for a patent, if the scope of the right becomes clear only by the description of the claim, whether the scope of the claim can be interpreted by other description, such as a detailed description of the invention or a drawing (negative)

[2] The case affirming the court below's determination that the inventive step is denied on the ground that the amended claim 6 of the patent application invention using the name "the heading office and heading office for the earthquake processing device" can easily be derived from the comparable invention if the ordinary technician in the art to which the patent application invention pertains is a normal technician in the art to which the patent application invention pertains, and that the ordinary technician cannot have an unexpected obvious effect compared with the comparable invention

[1] Articles 42(2) and 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(1) and (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Hu734 delivered on September 7, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2194) Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu3360 Delivered on July 9, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1355)

1. The case where the Plaintiff (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Yellow-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2008Heo842 Decided September 25, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the scope of a patent right shall be determined by the specification attached to a patent application, it is not allowed to interpret a limitation on the scope of a patent right in accordance with other specification, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention, in a case where the scope of a patent right becomes clear only by the description of the claims in determining whether the invention is not patentable (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Hu734, Sept. 7, 2001; 2008Hu3360, Jul. 9, 2009, etc.).

We examine in light of the above legal principles and records.

The composition of the patent application invention of this case (application number: No. 205-25623) with the name "the heading and operating method of the strings for the strings and the strings for the strings" is not indicated as "the scope of rights is apparent, the strings are connected to the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings" or "the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the strings for the 1 step.

In addition, the elements 2 of the instant Claim No. 6 invention as indicated in the judgment of the court below are composed of “the valves ploo that separates the office heads and office heads in order.” In the instant Claim No. 6 invention, the records are connected by the connecting pipe, and the string valves are separated and connected. As the valves ploo is a simple type of valve, it is merely a widely known type technology. As such, if an ordinary technician is a normal technician, it can be easily derived from the corresponding composition of the comparable invention. Other elements 3 through 5 of the judgment of the court below are not different from the response composition commenced in the comparable invention, or are widely known and used technologies.

Furthermore, in terms of the operating effect, the instant Claim No. 6 invention does not differ in that it is possible to reduce the cost of the dust pumps by continuously exhausting the string of the strings by using the comparable invention and the string pumps effectively, and there is no difference in that it is possible to reduce the cost of the strings, and it cannot be said that there is a significant obvious effect that ordinary technicians have unexpectedly predicted compared

Therefore, the non-obviousness of the Claim No. 6 invention of this case is deemed to be denied based on the comparable invention, and the court below is just in determining the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step

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.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)