The case holding that the invention subject to confirmation does not fall within the scope of the right of the patented invention, on the grounds that its name differs from the composition and operation method of the semiconductor DNA test device, and that the test radar differs from the route from the arrode to the arrode part, and that the test radar does not fall within the scope of the right of the patented invention.

Article 135 of the Patent Act

A. Sha Doz. (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cwing Co., Ltd. (Patent & Patent Attorney Kim Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo3663 Decided January 18, 2007

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

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

In light of the records, the patented invention of this case (patent No. 292831) with the name of semiconductor testing device " shall be indicated in the premise of the patent claim concerning the buyer, "the semiconductor DNA, which is finished in accordance with the results of the testing memoryd in the buyer part, is divided into two parts and defective parts, and is composed to transfer the buyer to the buyer." The distinctive part of the patent claim states that "the buyer shall be placed in the front side of the buyer, and the buyer shall be placed in the second words on the front side of the buyer, and the buyer shall be placed in the second words on the front side of the buyer," so the patented invention of this case shall be divided into two parts on the buyer's surface and the buyer's body to be transferred to the buyer's body and the buyer's body to be transferred to the buyer's body to correspond to the two buyer's body.

Meanwhile, the patented invention of this case is interpreted as the composition of "the length of the patent invention of this case consisting of the tetray from the 2nd speech part to the rosty part, and "the tetray panel from the 1stur part to the rosty part through the 1stur part", and the term "it is in transit" generally used as "the rost, multilateral, followed," and "the increase in the number of fishing vessels by killing or killing people or goods". Thus, the patented invention of this case is interpreted as the composition of the tetray panel and the tetray panel from the 1stur part to the rosty part, and it is difficult to see that the tetray panel has a difference in the composition of the invention of this case to the erosty part to the erosty part to the erosty part to the erosty part to the erosty part to the next erost part to the erost part to the lower part to the next e.

Therefore, since the invention in question differs from the composition of the patented invention in this case and the speech panel and the route from the roarar to the roarar part, the remaining composition of the judgment of the court below shall not be included in the scope of the right to the patented invention in this case without examining the remaining composition of the judgment of the court below, the judgment below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the claims in this case, incomplete hearing, lack of reasons, omission of judgment, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The plaintiff's assertion in the ground of appeal is without merit, since it criticizes

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)