[1] The meaning of the change in the substance of Articles 47, 48, and 49 of the former Patent Act

[2] The case invalidating a patent on the ground that the amendment to the patented invention constitutes a change in its substance and the filing date of the amendment is delayed and the patented invention was publicly announced or publicly worked before the submission date of the amendment

[1] According to Articles 47, 48, and 49 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 5329 of Apr. 10, 197), a patent applicant may amend the specification or drawings attached to a patent application to the extent that it does not change the substance within a specified period prior to service of a certified copy of the decision of public notice of application in order to clarify the specification, etc. in cases where there is any defect or lack of documents in the specification, etc. in the specification or drawings, and where the above amendment is recognized after the registration of establishment of a patent right to change the substance of the specification or drawings, the entire filing date of the patent application shall be delayed at the time of submission of the correction. The amendment of the substance here refers to an increase, decrease, or change in the scope of the claims beyond the scope of the original specification or drawings, and also includes not only the matters described in the first application specification or drawings explicitly but also the matters described in the first application specification or drawings if the patent applicant has ordinary knowledge in the art at the time of application, the applicant shall be deemed to have stated the description.

[2] The case invalidating a patent on the ground that the amendment to the patented invention constitutes a change in its substance and the filing date of the amendment is delayed and the patented invention was publicly announced or publicly worked before the submission date of the amendment

[1] Articles 47 (see current Article 47(1)), 48 (see current Article 47(2)), and 49 (see current Article 47(2)), and 49 (see current Article 49(2) of the former Patent Act (Amended by Act No. 5329, Apr. 10, 197); / [2] Articles 29(1), 47 (see current Article 47(1)), 48 (see current Article 47(2)), and 49 (see current deletion) of the former Patent Act (Amended by Act No. 5329, Apr. 10, 197)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Hu125 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 977), 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), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2302 delivered on September 30, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3296), Supreme Court Decision 200Hu2781 delivered on September 27, 2002 (Gong2602)

1. The term "standard Telecom Co., Ltd." and one other (Patent Attorney Ba-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Co., Ltd., semiconductor communications corporation

Rason Electronic Co., Ltd. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Lee Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 99Heo3269, 3283 decided January 19, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Articles 47, 48, and 49 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 5329 of Apr. 10, 1997), a patent applicant may amend the specification or drawings attached to a patent application to the extent that it does not change the substance within a specified period prior to service of a certified copy of the decision of publication in order to clarify the specification, etc., by clearly correct any defect or lack of documents in the specification. If such amendment is recognized after the registration of a patent as changing the substance of the specification or drawings, the entire filing date of the patent application shall be delayed at the time of submission of the correction. The amendment of the substance here refers to an increase, decrease, or change in the scope of the claims beyond the scope of the matters described in the initial specification or drawings. In addition, not only the matters explicitly stated in the initial application specification or drawings but also if the applicant has ordinary knowledge in the technical field at the time of application, the applicant shall be deemed to have been stated in the specification and shall also be deemed to have included therein.

The court below determined that, on the grounds as stated in the holding of the court below, as to whether the purport of the patent invention of this case (patent number omitted) was changed by the amendment made on April 29, 1996, the regional information (regional ID code) was stored separately from the subscriber ID information, and only one subscriber ID information was used during the radio call, and that the regional ID code was contained in the language code or message code code code code was extracted from the relevant regional channel to be received in the modified reception state, and that the composition of the patent invention of this case was identical to a separate channel designated by the regional code, and that the patent of this case was modified by the defendant prior to the amendment made on April 29, 1996, and that the patent of this case was modified by the amendment made on the initial specification or drawings of the patented invention of this case, and that the patent of this case was amended by the defendant prior to the amendment made on the initial specification or drawings of the patented invention of this case, and that the patent of this case was modified by the amendment made on the new specification or drawings of this case 2 and 3 different from the patent application date.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, it cannot be deemed clear to the extent that the contents added or modified by the amendment as of the above date were stated in the specification of the first application. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to amendment under the Patent Act or incomplete deliberation as to the loss of newness as otherwise alleged in the

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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)