A statement of the technical means of utility model registration at the time of the request for utility model registration

The purpose of Article 8(3) and (4) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209, Jan. 13, 1990) is to clarify the technical scope of a device filed by disclosing the content of the device to a third party and clarifying the technical scope of the device. The extent that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the device pertains can easily implement the device is refers to the degree that anyone can clearly understand and reproduce the content of the device, if the device is a person with an average technical skill in the art to which the device pertains, based on the technical level at the time of the application. Therefore, any technical means using the device belongs to the technical level at the time of the application, and it is possible to understand even if its composition is not specified, the content of the technical means need not be stated in the former technical means.

Articles 8(3) and 8(4) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of January 13, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 84Hu43 delivered on May 28, 1985 (Gong1985,920) 84Hu54 delivered on September 29, 1987 (Gong1987,1646) 92Hu49 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong192,2562) 92Hu205 delivered on January 14, 1994

Patent Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Choi Jae-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1598 Delivered on October 8, 1991

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 91 No. 398 dated November 18, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. 원심결이유에 의하면 원심은, 청구인은 이 사건 고안의 정정명세서에는 로울러 (11)(12)(13)에 환돌기와 경사면이 없는 것으로 기재되어 있으나 제1도의 도면상으로는 있는 것으로 기재되었고 로울러 (11)(11’)(12)(12’)(13)(13’)로 압인된 이후에도 소재가 변형되므로 재가공의 필요성이 있고 연삭장치부도 도면상으로는 일방향으로만 배치되어 있으나 실제 사용은 1번 연삭기는 2, 3번 연삭기와는 반대방향으로만 설치하여 사용하므로 이 사건 고안은 정정 후에도 여전히 실시불능고안이라는 심판청구인의 주장에 대하여, 제1도인 평면도의 도시로 보아 압인로울러(11)(12)(13)에 환돌기와 경사면이 도시되었다고 볼 수 없고 설사 환돌기가 형성되어 있더라도 압하량이 아주 작으므로 폭의 차이는 적을 것이며 압인의 경우에도 소재가 변형되더라도 연삭과정에서 제거되거나 미리 바이트의 절삭량을 조절함으로써 해결될 수 있고 연삭기가 일방향으로만 배치되어 있어도 한쪽면만 가공하도록 되어 있으므로 캇터용 형재의 생산은 가능하고, 이 사건 고안의 압연장치부와 (가)호고안의 압연연삭가공부의 로울러의 순차구성이 동일유사하며 이 사건 고안의 연삭장치부와 (가)호고안의 연마가공부의 메인체인기어, 로울러, 연마기등의 구성이 동일유사하므로 양 고안은 그 결합구성과 주요부분의 배치 및 작동공정이 거의 동일하여 구성과 작용효과가 동일한 것으로 인정되고 심판청구인이 제출한 갑호증들의 기술과 이 사건 고안은 상이하다고 하여 이 사건 고안은 실시가 가능하고 공지기술과 상이하며 (가)호고안은 이 사건 고안과 동일하다고 판단하였다.

2. According to Article 8(3) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 190), the detailed description of a device in the utility model application must state the purpose, composition, function, and effect of the device to the extent that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the device pertains can easily implement the device. According to Article 8(4), the scope of a claim for utility model registration must clearly and concisely state the subject matter of protection in the description in one or more paragraphs. The purpose of the provision is to clarify the technical scope of the device by publishing it to a third party and to clarify the technical scope of the device, and the extent that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the device pertains can easily implement is the device refers refers to the degree that an average technical skill in the art to which the device pertains can be easily understood and reproduced. Thus, any person who uses the device can easily understand the subject matter of the device at the time of the application, and it is not necessary to specify the description of the device at the time of the application for utility model registration.

According to the records, although it is recognized that the claimant did not correct the first drawing of the drawing while correcting the device of this case with the permission for correction of the device of this case, even if it is based on the drawing(s) remaining as a voltage (15) and a slope (16) with the number attached thereto, and the rogate (11) (1) (12) (13) with no particular indication on the rogate and slope level, so it is difficult to see that there is no specific difference between the device of this case and the device of this case (11) (12) (12) (13) (13) (13) (12) (12) (12) (13) (13)) with the thickness of the device of this case, and it is difficult to see that there is no specific difference between the device of this case and the device of this case and the device of this case (13) with the thickness of 12) with the thickness of the device of this case (13) with the thickness of the device of this case.

A party member's decision 90Hu1055 did not decide whether a correction made by a person who filed a petition for a trial with permission of a political party or whether a correction made by the type of the person who filed a petition for a trial would change the substance of the correction. Thus, a trial for permission of a correction cannot be deemed to violate the above Supreme Court decision. Since the binding force of a judgment of a remand is limited to the Supreme Court decision made in the relevant case, it does not affect the binding force of the above Supreme Court decision in a trial for permission of

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)