[1] In determining whether a patent disability exists, where the scope of a right becomes clear only by the description of the claim, whether limiting the scope of the claim can be interpreted by other description, such as a detailed description of the invention or a drawing (negative)

[2] The purpose of Article 42(4)1 of the Patent Act and the method of determining whether the detailed description of the invention support the claim

[3] Whether the detailed description of the invention can be determined by comprehensively taking into account the drawings and the brief description of the drawings attached to the patent application to support the claim (affirmative)

[1] Since the scope of a patent right is set in accordance with the scope of a patent right, it is not permissible to interpret a limitation on the scope of a patent right in accordance with other descriptions, such as a detailed description or drawings of an invention that is not based only on the description of the scope of a patent right, in determining whether there is any ground for not being entitled to a patent.

[2] The purpose of Article 42(4)1 of the Patent Act is to prevent unfair outcomes granted to an invention that has not been disclosed by the applicant because matters not described in the detailed description of the invention in the specification attached to the patent application are described in a claim. Whether a claim is supported by the detailed description shall be determined based on the technical level at the time of the patent application by a person who has ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, on the basis of the technical level at the time of the patent application, whether the claim is supported by the detailed description of the invention.

[3] The drawings are not necessarily attached to a patent application, but can not substitute the detailed description of the invention with only the drawings. However, in a case where the drawings are attached so that the composition of the invention can be more easily understood by showing the examples of implementation, etc., the determination of whether the detailed description of the invention is supported by the claims can be made by comprehensively taking into account the brief description of the drawings and the drawings.

[1] Articles 42(2) and 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 42(4)1 of the Patent Act / [3] Article 42(2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Hu734 delivered on September 7, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2194) Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu3546 Delivered on November 10, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1990)/ [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu1120 Delivered on May 11, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 1070)

E.S. 1 (Patent Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The term "the term "the term" means "the term "the term" means "the term or "the term" means "the term or "the term" means "the term or "the term

Patent Court Decision 2003Heo2188 Decided February 6, 2004

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

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

Since the scope of a patent right is determined in accordance with the scope of a patent claim, in determining whether an invention has a ground for not being entitled to a patent, it is not allowed to limit the scope of a patent by other descriptions, such as the detailed description or drawing(s), in a case where the scope of a patent right becomes clear only by the description of the claim(s). (See Supreme Court Decisions 9Hu734 delivered on September 7, 2001; 2004Hu3546 delivered on November 10, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, since the phrase "the framework" of the scope of claims (patent registration number omitted) of the patent invention of this case (patent registration number omitted) of the patent invention of this case as to the Madit Dam 1 is clear in itself its technical meaning and its scope is, it cannot be interpreted by limiting it to mean "a separate constituent body combined in the way of inserting or cutting in the passage". This circumstance is that both ends of the mold mentioned in the drawing 7 of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case's patent invention of this case.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

Article 42 (4) 1 of the Patent Act provides that a patent application shall be supported by a detailed description of the invention. The purport of Article 42 (4) 1 of the Patent Act is to prevent unfair result in which a patent right is granted to an invention not disclosed to the applicant because matters not described in the detailed description of the invention attached to the patent application are stated in the claim. Whether a patent application is supported by a detailed description is based on the level of technology at the time of the patent application, the determination shall be made on whether the matters described in the patent application and the response described in the ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains are indicated in the detailed description of the invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu120, May 11, 2006). Meanwhile, Article 42 (2) of the Patent Act provides that a patent application shall be accompanied by the name of the invention, a brief description of the drawings, a detailed description of the invention, a detailed description of the claims, and a detailed description and abstract, and shall be accompanied by a detailed specification and abstract if it is not necessarily possible to provide a detailed specification.

In light of the above legal principles and records, Paragraph 6 invention of this case contains "in the case where the exhaustr was closed in the invention of this case, the mold covers the exhaustr line when the exhaustr was installed and the exhaustr was exposed from the body when the exhaustr was installed," and it cannot be deemed that the detailed description of the invention contains matters corresponding to the claim, and even considering the contents of the accompanying drawings including the drawings 7, the claim cannot be supported by the detailed description. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the claim of this case was patented in violation of Paragraph 6 invention of Article 42 (4) 1 of the Patent Act is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the lack of entry in the specification and incomplete deliberation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)