[1] The method to determine the scope of right to a patented invention where the technical composition is not known from the terms indicated in the claim(s)

[2] The case holding that the scope of the right to the patented invention shall be determined after determining the technical composition by taking into account the description of the "detailed description of the invention" since the term "buffer" itself is not enough to identify the specific elements of the technical composition

[1] In determining the scope of a patent right of a patented invention, even if the meaning of the terms indicated in the scope of the patent right is clear, if it is difficult to find out the technical composition from such terms, the scope of the patent right of the patented invention shall be determined by determining the technical composition of the terms, taking into account the detailed description of the invention and the description

[2] The case holding that the scope of the right to the patented invention shall be determined after determining the technical composition by taking into account the description of the "detailed description of the invention" on the ground that the term "buffer" itself is not enough to identify the specific elements of the technical composition

[1] Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Kim Jung-hae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 Co., Ltd and one other (Attorneys Lee & Lee & Lee, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo451 Decided January 11, 2007

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In determining the scope of right to a patented invention, even if the meaning of the terms indicated in the claim(s) is clearly clear, if it is difficult to know the technical composition from such terms, the scope of right to the patented invention shall be determined by determining the technical composition specifying the terms in light of the detailed description of the invention and the description of the drawings;

2. In light of the above legal principles and records, the term "buffer" as stated in paragraphs (1) and (5) of the patent claim of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter "claim 1 and (5) of this case") refers to the composition that absorptions shocks into wheelchairs slicks and does not communicate them to permanent seat. However, since the term "buffers" is functional expression, and the term itself does not know the specific contents of the technical composition, considering the detailed description and drawings of the invention, the "detailed description of the invention" of this case does not include any buffer material, and there is no buffer material composed of sufficient buffer material on the part of the buffers, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below as to the structure of the invention of this case as stated in Paragraph 1 of this case or in the judgment of the court below that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the composition of buffer space to make the buffer from external shocks between Buffers and permanent seats, and there is no error in the composition of Paragraph 5 of the invention of this case.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)