206Hu1896. Nullification of registration (specific)

Stock Company

Seoul EET NET

this representative director

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok, Attorneys Lee Do-young, Du-se and Patent Attorney

cs, E.

United States

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Representative DIETS R OPE ME, DOCROTRE

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm PC, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Shin, Kim, Park, Park Jong-young, Kim, Kim, and west:

A person shall be appointed.

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo3512 Decided June 15, 2006

June 26, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The technical composition of an invention to determine the requirements for a patent shall be confirmed on the basis of the description of the claims, except in extenuating circumstances, and it is not allowed to limit the scope of claims pursuant to other description, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Hu807, Jun. 14, 2007; 2004Hu776, Oct. 13, 2006, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, it is clear by the description of the claim(s) of the patented invention(s) of this case(s) of this case(s) of paragraph(1) of this case(s) of this case(s) of this case(s) of this case’s patent application(s) are manufacturing interconnection parts including connected areas under paragraph(1) of this case’s patent application(s) of this case’s patent application(s) of this case’s patented invention(s) of this case’s patent application(s) of this case’s patent application, manufacturing phase of canethyl structure on the rehabilitation base floor, manufacturing canethyl structure on the connected area of interconnection parts, whether canthethyl structure is modified or not, whether separate manufacturing elements are made, whether independent manufacturing process is made or not, regardless of whether electronic parts are opened in the manufacturing process, it cannot be interpreted as a ethyl structure separate from the manufacturing phase of the parts manufactured in a separate manufacturing process including connected areas under the detailed description or drawing(s).

In comparison with the invention described in paragraph (1) of this case based on the records on the premise of technical composition of the invention described in paragraph (1) of this case, the technical composition of the interconnection parts, including the area for connection to the invention described in paragraph (1), is to be followed by the stage of manufacturing nitrological elements of the comparable invention 1; the stage of building nitrological strata on the ethyl rocks of the comparable invention 2; the stage of manufacturing the ethyl structure on the surface of the solid container of the comparable invention 10; the stage of manufacturing the ethyl structure on the surface of the radioactive invention; the stage of removing the ethyl structure of the radioactive invention 1 of the comparable invention; the stage of manufacturing the ethyl structure on the surface of the radioactive invention 2 of the comparable invention; the stage of removing the ethyl structure of the radioactive invention ter; the stage of manufacturing the ethyl structure on the surface of the radioactive invention 1 of the comparable invention ; and the stage of manufacturing the ethyl structure of the ethyl compound 1 of the ethyl invention 2 of this case;

The technical composition of the manufacturing technology, canethyl structure (blick, canethyl cancer) is identical to that of the technical composition, which is installed in interconnection parts (blick kidging elements, nitroel layer, glass plate), and the structure of the sacrifice floor (slick aluminium layer, slick mix), which is installed in the interconnection parts (slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slicks). Thus, the instant Claim 1 invention is a publicly known structure before the priority claim date, and even if not, the instant Claim 1 invention can easily be made by combining each corresponding structure of comparable invention 1, 2, and 10.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of claims and the nonobviousness and inventive step of claims 2, 4, 6, and 13 and 20 of claims 1 of this case, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn-

Justices Shin Jae-chul et al.

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Cha Han-sung