(a) Amendment to the scope of claims and amendment to the gist thereof;

(b) The case reversing the original trial decision that the motion for change to the sub-sponsive concept is an essential change in the main concept of the sub-sponsive concept with respect to the claim for patent for invention of the liquid device that filed for the English defense

A. Article 47(2)3 and Article 48 of the Patent Act refers to an amendment to ensure the clarification of the specification, etc. by clearly correcting any defect or lack of specification, etc. in the event of a defect or absence of specification, etc., and the term "a change in the substance" refers to an increase, decrease, or a change in the scope of a patent claim as stated in the specification. It refers to an increase, decrease, or a change in the scope of a patent claim as filed in the initial application, which brings about a substantial change in the scope of the patent claim, such as an addition of a new summary, to the extent that its identity is not recognized. Accordingly

B. The case reversing the original trial decision that the request for patent for invention by the liquid device that filed the United Kingdom national defense defense with respect to the claim for patent for invention constitutes a change in the main concept to the lower concept as a supersponant concept.

Articles 47(2)3 and 48 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu11 Decided June 14, 1983 (Gong1983,1085) 86Hu113 Decided February 28, 1989 (Gong1989,553) 88Hu28 Decided December 12, 1989 (Gong1990,264) 91Hu1823 Decided June 26, 1992 (Gong192,2283)

United Kingdom National Defense Agency (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Na1570 Dated April 22, 1993

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are examined as well.

(1) According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the applicant filed a claim for the use of salt as an essential component of the original invention in the initial application specification of the original invention concerning liquid devices, but the amended specification claimed the selective optical absorption method that uses only two luminouss without salt, as the upper concept, and that it constitutes a change in the substance as it substantially expands the substance of the original invention.

(2) However, Article 47(2)3 of the Patent Act provides that an applicant may amend the specification or drawings attached to a patent application within the time limit for submitting a written opinion on the grounds for rejection to the extent that it does not change the substance of the specification or drawings initially attached to the patent application before the delivery of a certified copy of the decision of publication. Article 48 of the Special Insurance Act provides that an amendment to increase, decrease, or modify the claims in particular within the scope of the specification or drawings initially attached to the patent application before the delivery of a certified copy of the decision of publication shall not change the substance. The above amendment refers to an amendment to clarify the specification, etc. by clearly correcting any defect or defective parts in the specification, etc., and "an amendment" refers to an increase, decrease, or change in the scope of the patent application described in the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Hu11, Jun. 14, 1983; 2008Hu1861, Feb. 18, 1987).

In light of the record, the summary of the original invention is that the applicant's prior art, which is known as prior art on the premise of the original invention, has been operating in a liquid system for the purpose of enhancing multiple-sexity by removing various elements that were pointed out as prior technological problems with respect to the liquid apparatus, namely, DNA variables and materials variables to clarify the operating and blocking characteristics of light, making it optimal to make it possible to make multiple lives available by combining it with mXn format. The "selective absorption method of light" is used as a mXn format, and it is easy to use the light, or both combinations, as prior art on the premise of the original invention, which is known as a prior art on the premise of the original invention, and thus, it cannot be said that the applicant's prior art on the premise of the original invention falls under the substance of the original invention, and even if the applicant did not have any alternative absorption in the specifications of the initial application, the applicant's assertion that the original invention can not be seen as a part of the original invention without any prior indication of the original invention.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above change to the above upper concept constitutes a change in the main concept, and it is unlawful that affected the trial decision by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the main intent of the original invention or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the amendment of the specifications and the changes of the main intent. Therefore, there is reason to point this out.

(3) Therefore, the original decision 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 Don-hee (Presiding Justice)