[1] Method of determining the scope of a patent right

[2] The case holding that the inventive step of the patent application invention is recognized as to the uptake device

[1] In principle, the scope of a patent right or the substantial scope of protection shall be determined based on the matters described in the claims of the specification attached to the patent application. However, if the technical composition of the patent is unknown or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even if the description alone is known, the supplement may be made by another description in the specification. In this case, the extended interpretation of the scope of the patent shall not be permitted by another description in the specification, and if the technical scope is apparent solely with the description of the claims, the restrictive interpretation of the description of the claims may not be limited by another description in the specification

[2] The case holding that the inventive step is acknowledged on the ground that the patent application invention and the cited invention are clearly different from the purpose, technical composition, and operational effects of the patent application invention are clearly different, and the patent application invention is deemed to have a manifestly improved new operational effects beyond the expected effects from the publicly known prior art, and thus, a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology to which the invention pertains cannot easily derive from the cited invention, and thus, an inventive step is recognized.

[1] Article 57 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 13, 1990) (see Article 97 of the current Patent Act) / [2] Article 6 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 13, 1990) (see Article 29 (2) of the current Patent Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1809 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2279), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1908 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3082), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu258 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 9555), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1050 delivered on December 6, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 207) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu272 delivered on November 21, 195 (Gong196Sang, 58), Supreme Court Decision 194Hu1981 delivered on December 26, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 199, 194Hu195389 delivered on July 196, 1995)

Nweden Gazaba Baba (Patent Attorney Seo-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na622 dated May 31, 1996

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office by destroying the original decision of the court below.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Facts of and determination on the original decision

A. Claim 1 of the pending invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original invention of this case") is referred to in paragraph 1 of the patent application of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "the patent application of this case") as "the injecter supporting waferer from this injecting room, and with the waferer equipped with mechanical operation equipment with this doer that is in the above X direction, in the above injecting room, it is connected with the waferer that is in the above X direction, and with the waferer that is equipped with mechanical operation equipment that is in the above X direction, the above injectinger head is characterized by the above waferer so that the above waferer can cher with mechanical operation in the above Y direction." The summary of the cited invention of this case (the open in the Japan Patent Gazette) is "this injecter 63-224138, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., ion machine and the waferer that is connected with the s formed and its engine.

B. In comparison with the cited invention described in Paragraph 1 of the scope of the original invention, the original invention is related to the injecting device that is composed of a waferer supporting the waferer, and an injecting device that operates the waferer, so that the waferer can supply the waferer vertically to the direction of injecting the waferer, and the main parts of the original invention can be seen as an waferer that carries the waferer into the waferer so that the waferer can be supplied vertically to the waferer, and the quoted invention can be seen as an waferer that carries the waferer's waferer's waferer's waferer's waferer's waferer's waferth's waferth's waferth's waferth's waferth's waferth's wafer's wafer's moth's moth's moth's moth's's.

C. Therefore, since non-obviousness is not recognized in the original invention, the original decision of the court below is just, and there is no reason to file an appeal.

2. Judgment of party members

A. The purpose of Article 6(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) is to lack inventive step when an invention claimed in a patent application is a creation that can easily be derived from the prior art, the invention shall be deemed to lack inventive step and not obtain a patent. In a case where it is deemed that there is a new operating effect above the expected operating effect from the prior art publicly known in the patent application, and where it is determined that a technology claimed in the patent application is more significantly improved than the prior art, the invention shall not be easily made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, in light of the purpose of the patent system to promote the inventive step development of the technology, and it shall be deemed that there is inventive step (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu880, May 10, 1996).

In addition, the scope of a patent right or actual scope of a patent right shall be determined based on the matters described in the claims of the specification attached to the patent application. However, if the technical composition of the patent is not known or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even if the description alone 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 cannot be permitted by other statements in the specification, as well as when the technical scope is evident solely with the description in the specification, the limitation and interpretation of the claims cannot be limited by other statements in the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1908 delivered on October 12, 1993).

B. Therefore, according to the record, it is reasonable to prepare for the main invention and the quoted invention.

(1) First of all, the cited invention is designed to provide a ionion and its method, which is economically low costly and economically low, and is designed to provide a ionion and its method so that waferer can be legally injected in a way that it is directly connected with this, by calculating the surface part of the ionion three-dimensional surface of the iono-level surface of the iono-level type, detected by a static voltage measuring instrument. The original invention does not need to reduce the iono-level surface of the iono-level surface of the iono-level type, and it does not need to use the dynamic or mixed marr without adopting any complicated and difficult method such as the dynamic sealing method. Thus, both inventions are different from each other.

(2) Furthermore, in light of the technical composition and technical scope of the cited invention, it is difficult to determine the technical composition and technical scope of the original invention, and in consideration of the description, specification, detailed description, etc., it is difficult to determine the shot beam from a X direction so that the shot beam from a X direction can be mechanically injected in the direction-setting of the Y. In addition, in the case of hard-to-face-to-face type, a full-time voltage measuring instrument installed in the above disc to measure and calculate the surface level of the ionion type at the ionion level, and the static voltage measuring instrument is installed in the output of the static voltage measuring instrument, so it is possible to reduce the surface level of the ion level at the ion level. In addition, in the case of the cited invention, it is difficult to directly determine the technical composition and technical scope of the original invention, and in consideration of the description, etc. of the specification and detailed description, etc., the shot beam from the original invention is composed of three parts directly and directly composed of the ion method.

(3) In addition, the effects of both inventions are aimed at preventing damage by static electricity, and the quoted invention is merely designed to prevent damage by static electricity, the mother is exposed to the outside, and the wafers are used to maintain the state of progress in the storage and sealing for the device that puts and collects the wafers, and even in such a case, there still remains a problem that it is not possible to guarantee the reliability of the wafers. On the other hand, the original invention is designed to solve the problems of the motoning device as above, so it is possible to small up the motoon device, to conduct continuous work, to use high-priced multiples or mixings, and to provide a low cost-free device by simple strawing. In this regard, both inventions are different from each other.

C. As seen earlier, the original invention and the cited invention are clearly different in their purpose, technical composition, and operational effects, and the original invention are deemed to have a new operational effects significantly improved above the expected effects from the publicly known prior art, and thus, a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of technology to which the invention pertains cannot easily derive from the cited invention, and therefore, in the original invention, the inventive step is recognized. Therefore, even though the inventive step is recognized in the original invention, the lower court determined that the original invention has no inventive step by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the fundamental differences without properly understanding the core technological contents of the original invention and the quoted invention, and determined that the original invention has no inventive step merely because it is similar to the cited invention. In such a trial decision of the lower court, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of inventive step or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and there is a ground to point this out.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)