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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 136(1) and (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that a patentee may file a petition for correction of the specification or drawings to the extent that the claim is substantially expanded or modified.

Whether a claim constitutes a substantial expansion or modification of a claim shall be determined in preparation for the substantial contents of the claim identified by the specification and the entire drawings, including not only the formal description of the claim itself, but also the detailed description of the invention. If a correction of the claim constitutes a reduction of the claim, the purpose or effect thereof cannot be said to be changed, and it reflects the details in the detailed description and drawings, and thus it is not likely that a third party would incur unexpected damage, the substantial modification of the claim does not constitute a substantial modification.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Hu1081, Apr. 29, 2010; 2012Hu627, Feb. 13, 2014). 2. We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records.

A. The instant correction is made to the instant patent invention (patent registration number G) whose name is “D,” and the “defensive home” as referred to in paragraph (1) of the scope of the patent claim is changed to the fixed home that is formed on the upper part.

The formal entry of the scope of claims following the correction of this case constitutes the reduction of the scope of claims, as it specifically limits the shape of a fixed home.

B. In addition, among the specification of the instant patent invention, the detailed description of the invention states that “the complete prevention of all water leakages of a bridge” is effective, and the shape of “a fixed home in which the highest slope is formed above the upper part” is the most basic and representative drawing(3) and 4.