(a) Criteria for determining the scope of protection of a utility model right registered under the former Utility Model Act, and the subject of determination in determining the similarity of a device containing such publicly notified part;

(b) In determining whether (a) a device falls under the scope of the right in the registered complaint, the case reversed the original adjudication that recognized the scope of the right in the registered complaint to be wrong due to a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the scope of the right in the registered complaint or an incomplete hearing;

A. According to Article 57 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990), which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 29 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990), the scope of protection of a patented invention shall be the matters specified in the scope of the patent application accompanying the application, and in determining the scope of protection of a registered utility model right, it shall be determined by the matters specified in the scope of the patent application accompanying the application. In addition, in determining the similarity of both devices, it shall be limited to the remaining parts of both devices, excluding the publicly notified parts.

B. The case reversing the original decision that recognized the scope of the right in the registered complaint to be wrong due to incomplete deliberation by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the right in the registered complaint, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, in determining whether the (a) device falls under the scope of the right in the registered complaint, although the gas station for the exploitation of gas pipes connected to the gas pipe for the purpose of exploitation to both sides through valves and gas discharge pipes consisting of pool gases for the purpose of spreading down both sides through valves and gas discharge pipes.

Article 29 of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of January 13, 1990), Article 57 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu823 Decided March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1184) 91Da4744 Decided May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1607) 90Hu2409 Decided September 24, 1991 (Gong191, 2618)

Claimant, Patent Attorney Kim Jong-nam et al.

Attorney Park Jong-cheon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Order 537 dated September 30, 1991

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the device of this case or (a) is a sort of gas gas smoke, and the device of this case or (a) is a device related to the same kind of gas gas combustion, and it is a common way to form a gas pipe into the central part of the shooting plates installed in the front of the gas tube, and to extinguish it into two gas pipes with a flame that is cut out from the enjoyer being emitted by the voltage device, and it is also common way to extinguish it into two gas pipes. However, the structure itself is not only a part of the entire structure of the two, and the two is not only a part of the whole structure of the two, and the two are related to the gas gas supply pipe and the effect of this, which results in a further action, and the device of this case is just as the device of this case, compared to the device of (a) the device of this case is made by the next voltager, and it is also justified to divide the device of this case into two parts, such as a pressure pressure, which will be caused by the pressure of the gas to the end.

According to Article 57 of the former Patent Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 29 of the former Utility Model Act, the scope of protection of a patented invention shall be specified in the specification requests attached at the time of patent application. In determining the same similarity of a registered utility model right, the subject of determination shall be limited to the part other than the publicly known part among both devices. According to the records, the scope of the right to the present device depends on whether (a) the technical composition of the device falls under the scope of the right to the present device is similar to the above technical composition of the present device, since (b) whether the technical composition of the device falls under the scope of the right to the present device is identical.

Nevertheless, the original decision acknowledges that the main device and (a) the main device are common in the composition itself, which forms a common part of the base board installed in the front side of the two gas pipes, installed in the body of the gas gry, and in the composition itself, which is composed of flames that come from the flag to the ging from the flag to the ging from the flag to the two gas pipes, and that (a) the main device differs in the order of arrangement of the oil pipes and valves for the purpose of using the regradation of the main device, and that the regradic location differs from the source location of the main device in order to use the regradification structure of the main device (a) the upper part is determined not to fall under the scope of the right to the device of this case. It is justified in its conclusion that the legal principles on the scope of the right in the registration are misunderstanding the scope of the right, or that the scope of the right to the device is wrong due to incomplete deliberation, and the final appeal is justified.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)