[1] The criteria for determining the scope of a patent right or the actual scope of protection

[2] The case holding that in determining the scope of the right of a patented invention under the name of "the automatic iceing method by inputting the head of a sign key cooperative and the device employing such method", it cannot be interpreted as limited to the contents not specified in the scope of the claim

[1] Article 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 97 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1908 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3082), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu118 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1875) Supreme Court Decision 96Hu108 delivered on May 222, 1998 (Gong2001Ha, 1539) Supreme Court Decision 9Hu1348 delivered on October 12, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2489)

El brancha Co., Ltd.

El branch Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Full Completion and four others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1, et al. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2003Heo717 delivered on January 15, 2004

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

In principle, the scope of a patent right or the actual scope of a patent right shall be determined based on the matters described in the claims of a specification attached to a patent application. However, if the technical composition of the patent is not known or the technical scope can not be determined even if only the description is known, the supplement may be made by other statements in the specification. In this case, the extended interpretation of the scope of a patent is not allowed by other statements in the specification, and the limitation on the scope of a patent right cannot be interpreted by other statements in the specification in a case where the technical scope is evident solely with the description in the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu118, May 28, 1997; 98Hu2856, Jun. 1, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below interpreted that the patent invention of this case (patent No. 113326) "the first step in which a number of defense data is stored by scaming and scaming in accordance with the head text of the name of the scam investment in the scam," and it cannot be deemed that only the initial part of the scam investment name is included in the storage after inputting only the original part of the scam in accordance with the head text of the scam investment name, since it is stated that "the first step in which multiple defense data are stored by scaming and scaming in the scam of the scam," and it can be interpreted that the patent invention of this case can be easily claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention belongs pursuant to the cited invention 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court below, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)