[1] The case holding that the inventive step is recognized on the ground that the patented invention had an unexpected and substantially increased operating effect compared to the cited invention

[2] Standard for interpreting the scope of claims

[1] The case holding that the inventive step is recognized on the ground that, unlike the cited invention, where the patented invention is used as a component not related to the cited invention, and it is used as a component of the patented invention only for the glyzidine and the glycerine with the removal of dynam ingredients as its principal ingredient, and where the dysium composition was not used for a long time and the dysium composition was not used for a long time, if the dysium composition was added to the dysium, the dysium was returned to its original condition, and the dysium dysium was less,

[2] In a case where the description of the claim can be clearly understood, and even if any, it cannot be deemed clear in light of the detailed description that the description is a clerical error in the patent application, the summary of the patent application should be based on the description of the claim in recognizing the patent invention for the purpose of determining whether the patent registration is void or not, and it shall not be supplemented by the detailed description of the invention.

[1] Articles 29(2) and 133(1)1 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 29(2), 42, and 133(1)1 of the Patent Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Dong-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo7042 delivered on February 25, 1999

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

The lower court determined that the patent invention of this case was unlawful in terms of comparing the 'patent invention of this case' with the 'enchlogram fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoralsium, which is the patent invention of this case, and that both inventions were related to the dluoral fluoral fluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluoral dluor'.

In light of the records, it is reasonable for the court below to recognize the inventive step of the patented invention of this case on the ground that the patented invention of this case has an effect of considerable increase in the cost of creating the patented invention in comparison with the cited invention, because the patented invention of this case uses the gyriaidine, which is not an invention, and uses the gyriaidine and the gyria, whose principal ingredients are used only as the gyria, different from the cited invention, and if the gynasium was not constructed for a long time because the gynasium was not used for a long time, the gynasium is returned to its original condition, and if the gynasium was added, and the gynasium was not constructed, and the gynasium was less likely to have an effect of using the gynasium as its principal ingredients. (The development cost of the gynasium component of this case is completely different from the development cost of the cited invention. Accordingly, there is no obvious difference in this point of view

However, the claims of the patented invention in this case include that "Nemanium, salt, and vegetation are used as "1wt% or less", and it is clear that "1wt% or less" means "0-1wt% or less". Thus, the products created in the patented invention in this case shall be deemed to be included within the scope of 1wt per se on the basis of the above elements, and if the contents of the claims can be clearly understood and it is not clear even if so, in light of the detailed description of the invention, it shall be based only on the description of the claims in the recognition of the summary of the patent invention for determination of invalidation or invalidation of the patent registration, and it shall not be interpreted as supplement by the detailed description of the invention. Nevertheless, considering the above elements in light of the description as stated in the main text of the specification, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the scope of claims, or it shall not be accepted as a conflict in the scope of claims in this case where it appears to have any effect on the non-obviousness of the patented invention in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)