[1] The description of the invention to be described in the specification attached to the patent application

[2] The case holding that the detailed description of the invention was not stated in the specification attached to the patent application

[1] According to Article 42(3) of the Patent Act, the "detailed description of the invention", which is to be entered in the specification to be submitted along with the patent application, shall state the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention in such a manner that the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement it. "The extent that the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement it" means a person with ordinary technical understanding in the art to which the invention pertains, namely, a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, can understand it accurately and accurately without adding special knowledge by considering the level of technology at the time of application based on the description of the invention in question.

[2] The case affirming the decision of the court below that the decision to reject a patent application is justifiable on the ground that the specification attached to the patent application did not contain a detailed description of the invention

[1] Article 42(3) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 42(3) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Hu54 delivered on September 29, 1987 (Gong1987, 1646), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1233 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2562), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1233 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993, 1404), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu654 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2810), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1459 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong196, 785)

Applicant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na936 dated December 29, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 42(3) of the Patent Act, the "detailed description of the invention" to be attached to a patent application shall state the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention to the extent that the invention can easily be carried out by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains. According to Article 42(4) of the Patent Act, the "scope of a patent claim" to be described in the specification shall state one or more items to be protected among the items described in the specification. Such claims shall be supported by the detailed description ( Subparagraph 1), clearly and concisely, the invention shall be clearly and concisely described ( Subparagraph 2), and shall be stated only by such matters as are not indispensable for the composition of the invention (Article 3). The purport of such provision is to clarify the technical scope by disclosing the contents of the invention claimed in the patent application to a third party, and "the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily carry out" shall be deemed to have a common knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains, i.e., the average technological knowledge at 194. 96.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in the specification of the patent application of this case, the patent application of this case contains "the functional device in accordance with the organicity of the claim(s)(1)(s)(s)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(ii)(iii)(s)(s)(i)(i)(s)(i)(s)(i)(i)(s)(i)(i)(s)(i)(i)(s)(i)(s)(ii)(s)(s)(s)(s)(i)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(i)(i)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(i)(s)(ii)(s)(i)(s)(ii)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(i)(s)(s)(i)(s)(i)(s)(i)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)(s))(s))(s)(s)(s))(s)(s))))(s)(s)(s)))(s)(s))

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)