[1] The meaning of "to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily conduct it" under Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act

[2] The patent requirements and the degree of description of the selective invention

[1] "The extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily conduct" as provided by Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) refers to a person with common knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, i.e., a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, can understand the invention accurately and accurately without adding special knowledge by considering it as the level of technology at the time of application based on the description in the specification.

[2] The so-called selective invention whose elements are stated in the preceding or publicly known invention as a superior concept and all or part of the subordinate concepts included in the above upper concept does not start with the subordinate concepts comprising the selective invention specifically, and all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention are entitled to a patent only if the preceding invention has effects different in quality from the effects of the preceding invention, or if there is no qualitative difference in quality, or if there is a substantial difference in quantity. Even if the detailed description of the selective invention does not include the comparative experiment data or comparison result capable of specifically confirming such effects, it can be said that the ordinary technician satisfies the requirements for specification clearly and sufficiently enough to understand the effects as the selective invention.

[1] Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 42 (3)) / [2] Articles 6 (2) (see current Article 29 (2)) and 8 (3) (see current Article 42 (3)) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2477 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1784) Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu387 Delivered on June 27, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1442) Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu2089 Delivered on November 24, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2740 Delivered on April 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1363)

Central and Foreign Medicine Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Spah et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Skknb Cambodia (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2004Heo6521 Decided November 3, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement submitted after the expiration of the period) Nos. 1 through 5 are examined.

Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) provides that "the detailed description of the invention" to be entered in the specification to be submitted along with a patent application shall state the purpose, composition, action, and effect of the invention so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the invention." "the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily perform the invention" means a person with ordinary technical knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, namely, a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains, who has ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains, can understand the invention accurately without adding special knowledge in light of the technical level at which the invention is applied by the description of the specification, and at the same time, it means the extent that the invention can be reconstructed (see Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2477, Jul. 23, 199).

The so-called selective invention whose elements are stated in the preceding or publicly notified invention as a higher concept and all or part of the subordinate concepts included in the above upper concept does not start with the subordinate concepts comprising the selective invention specifically, and all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have effects different in quality from the effects of the preceding invention, or can obtain a patent only if there is a remarkable difference in quality even though there is no qualitative difference (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2740, Apr. 25, 2003). Thus, even if the detailed description of the selective invention does not include any comparative experiment data or comparison result that can confirm the effects thereof in detail, it can be said that ordinary technicians have satisfied the requirements for specification clearly and sufficiently to the extent that they can understand the effects as selective invention.

Examining the facts established by the court below in light of the records, Paragraph 16 (hereinafter "paragraph 16 (hereinafter "the invention of this case") of the patent claim of this case (patent number omitted) is a selective invention consisting of "17 B/T-4-A-Ha-N-N-1-N-3 of the subordinate concepts of the comparable Invention in the judgment below, which is a compound of the upper concept, "N-T-T-A-1-N-1-N-3". The detailed description of the patented invention of this case only provides that the patented invention of this case is superior to the prior inventions of this case, which have the effect of preventing tetothrology-5 dypology-5 dypology- exchange effect, and it can be known that there is only a description that the patent invention of this case is superior to that of the prior inventions with the effect of preventing tetothrology-5 - exchange effect, and such description alone is clear and sufficient to understand that the person with technology of this case has a substantial effect in quality compared to that of the cited invention of this case.

Therefore, it is not appropriate for the court below to require the specification of the instant patent invention to state at least one result of comparison, which can be seen as significantly excellent in themetostostostostosto-5 xivy dypology suppression effect compared to the practice of comparable inventions. However, the decision that the instant Claim 16 invention failed to meet the specification requirements as a selective invention is reasonable in conclusion. Therefore, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification requirements of the patented invention that affected the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged in the grounds of

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)