[1] The purpose of Article 8 (3) and (4) of the former Patent Act and the meaning of "the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily conduct" as provided in Article 8 (3) and (3) of the same Act

[2] The case holding that the detailed description of the invention described in the patent application specification is stated to the extent that it can be easily carried out by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains

[1] According to Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 190), "the detailed description of the invention" to be submitted along with a patent application shall state the purpose, structure, effect, and effect of the invention so that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the invention. According to Article 8 (4) of the same Act, "the scope of the patent claim" shall clearly and concisely state the subject matter of patent protection in the specification as one or more provisions. The purport of the above provision is to clarify the technical contents and scope of the invention to be protected as a patent right by disclosing its contents to a third party, and "the extent that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the patent application" is "the extent that 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, and an average technician, who has an average skill in the art to which the invention pertains, can not be understood by the specification at the same time as an application.

[2] The case holding that the detailed description of the invention described in the patent application specification is described to the extent that it can be easily carried out by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains

[1] Article 8(3) and (4) (see current Article 42(3) and (4) (see current Article 42(4)), Article 82(1)1 (see current Article 62 subparag. 4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 82(1)1 (see current Article 62 subparag. 4) of the former Patent Act / [2] Article 8(3) (see current Article 42(3) and (4) (see current Article 42(4)), Article 82(1)1 (see current Article 62 subparag. 4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Hu53 delivered on June 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1287), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu654 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2810), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu95 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2377), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1326 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2664), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2531 delivered on July 25, 197 (Gong197Ha, 2722)

Patom & Patom-BE (Patent Attorney Nam-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 95Na1926 decided July 1, 1997

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the "former Patent Act"), "the detailed description of an invention to be entered in the specification to be submitted along with a patent application shall state the purpose, structure, effect, and effect of the invention so that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the patent application. According to Article 8(4) of the same Act, "the scope of a patent claim" to be entered in the specification shall state clearly and concisely the matters to be protected among the matters described in the specification as one or more claims. The purport of the provision is to clarify the technical contents and scope of the invention to be protected as a patent right by disclosing it to a third party, and "the extent that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains can easily implement the patent application" under the above provision is an average person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains, and it can be understood that the patent application can not be corrected by the aforementioned specification 97.196.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below as to the decision of the court below as to the plaintiff's rejection ruling of this case, since it is unclear how to output the signal generated by pulse generation (1) and what kind of mediation process is related to the output of pulse (4) and what kind of mediation process, it is difficult to confirm the technical summary belonging to the claims of the original invention, and it is difficult to confirm the technical summary of the original invention, and it is unclear where the mediation needs to be carried out, and what service condition is "service condition" among the claims of the original invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original invention of this case"). Since the description of the original invention of this case can not be easily described by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field, the decision of the court below is justified in the decision of the court below as to the original invention of this case.

However, according to the records, since the description of the original invention is not a few parts of the terms used in this field, it is difficult for any person to use the original image signals to use the original image signals, and interpret the scope and detailed description of the patent claim stated in the description by using the original image signals to the extent that it is difficult to use the original image signals for the original image signals, the original invention is converted from pulse generation (1) to the frequency transformation (6) and each frequency change (3) to make it easier for the original image signals to use the original image signals to be described in the original image signals to the extent that the new image signals are not carried out by the original image signals to the extent that the new image signals are not carried out by the original image signals to the extent that the new image signals are not carried out by the original image signals to the extent that the new image signals are carried out by the original image signals to the extent that the new image signals are not carried out by the original image signals to the extent that they are not easily carried out by the original image signals to the original image signals to the extent that they are finally stored in the original image signals.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the original condition which refused to register a patent for the original invention was justifiable on the same ground as its reasoning is not sufficient and it is an error of law that affected the trial decision due to a lack of understanding of the technology to which the original invention belongs, and the argument that points this out is with merit.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Intellectual Property Tribunal corresponding to the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)