[1] The meaning of correcting a clerical error in the specification or drawing(s) of a patented invention pursuant to Articles 136(1) and 47(3)2 of the former Patent Act

[2] Criteria to determine whether a correction of the scope of claims under Article 136(1) and (3) of the former Patent Act constitutes a case where the scope of claims is substantially expanded or modified

[1] Where a clerical error in the specification or drawing(s) of a patented invention is corrected pursuant to Articles 136(1) and 47(3)2 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 9381 of Jan. 30, 2009), means the case where a clerical error is clearly stated in light of the description of the specification and drawing(s) and the technical consciousness of the pertinent technical field, etc.

[2] Article 136(1) and (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 9381 of Jan. 30, 2009) provides that a patentee may request corrections to the specification or drawing(s) to the extent that the claims are substantially expanded or modified. Here, whether the scope of claims constitutes a case where the scope of claims is substantially expanded or modified shall be determined in preparation for the substantive contents of the claims identified by the specification and drawing(s), including not only the formal description of the claims themselves, but also the detailed description of the invention. After the correction, even if the scope of claims is made, there is no change in the purpose or effect of the invention, but also reflects the contents indicated in the detailed description and drawing(s). Thus, if there is no concern that the damage that the claims prior to the correction might not be compensated to a third party who trusted the claims prior to the correction, such a request for correction

[1] Articles 47(3)2 and 136(1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 9381 of Jan. 30, 2009) / [2] Article 136(1) and (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 9381 of Jan. 30, 2009)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu2451 Decided September 30, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1728) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu1081 Decided April 29, 2010

Nanopos, Inc.

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 201Heo2084 Decided January 12, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. “Correction of erroneous entries” under Articles 136(1) and 47(3)2 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 9381, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter the same) refers to a case where “a correction of erroneous entries is made in light of the overall description of the specification and drawings, and the technical consciousness of the pertinent technical field, etc., with which a request for correction of the specification or drawing of the patented invention can be made” means “a case where a correction of erroneous entries is made with the original right entry of an obvious clerical error in light of the technical perception of the pertinent technical field” (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu2451, Sept. 30, 2005,

B. We examine the above legal principles and records.

The key issues of the instant patent invention (patent number omitted) in the judgment of the court below regarding the patent invention of this case (patent number omitted) using the revolving luminous tamp, a method of obtaining electric defense images and direct players images and the video system using the revolving luminous tamp, and the corrective issues of the instant patent invention (patent number omitted) are as follows: (a) and (59) of the scope of the instant patent claim and (b) of the specifications, and (c) of the 304 Act, “The method of the electric defense administration shall be expressed in a straight line parallel to Y-R on the face of the image after the correction of the straight line parallel to Y-M-Y on the face of the image; and (b) two skins having the same distance from each of the three books on the face of the h-Y on the face of the three books.”

The specification of the instant patent invention is not “X-Y square” but “X-Z square” in the specification of the instant patent invention prior to the correction in relation to the method of the former defense administration.

However, the specification and drawings of the patented invention of this case include the following purport: “The purpose of the patented invention of this case is to provide a video system that shows the image of a direct player with no visual image or distorted image that is naturally stimulated from distorted images, and among which, the method of front defense administration, which shows all the visual images, is 37 Does, a visual screen, a distorted image acquired by using a nathrene, and a vertical straight line parallel with a vertical line at the third cost space, shall be indicated as a parallel line on the face of the corrected image, and the two stimuls with the same width in the horizontal direction in the horizontal direction from the third cost space shall be indicated as follows: “The two stimuls whose body is naturally stimulatedd from the corrected image to have the distance of x- the same on the face of the corrected image, and then show 38 Does, a video screen after the correction.”

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, in ordinary cases, X-Y-H level information on the surface of the earth is fixed to the upper part of the body located in the third source space consisting of the Y with the string of the upper part of the body, x, and y. In addition, when the string of light forming the string of the photographer, the x-scale of the horizontal direction of the image center is fixed with the information on the upper part of the X-Y level, and the information on the upper part of the Y-H level is fixed to enable the implementation of the patented invention at the length of the whole X-Y level to be located in the same direction as the 3rd in the upper part of the screen at the distance of the body located in the front of the correction, if a person with ordinary knowledge in the field of the art of the art of the art of this case is at the same time at the distance of the upper part of the Y-Y level and at the same direction as the 3rd in the upper part of the screen-Y-H level of the body.

In full view of the specification and the entire drawings of the instant patent invention, technical consciousness in the relevant technical field, etc., the instant issues were deemed to have been corrected as “X-Y square plane,” which is an original correct entry, and thus, the instant issues were deemed to have been corrected as “X-Y square plane,” under Articles 136(1) and 47(3)2 of the former Patent Act.

On the other hand, the trial for correction can be requested to the entire specification and drawings including the claim(Article 136(1) of the former Patent Act). Thus, the correction of the issue of this case is about the claim or definition. It does not change because it is about the claim or definition.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to “an error in correction” in the petition for correction trial.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 through 5

A. Article 136(1) and (3) of the former Patent Act provides that a patentee may file a request for correction of the specification or drawing(s) to the extent that the scope of the patent application does not substantially extend or modify the scope of the patent application. Whether a patent application constitutes a case where a patent application is substantially extended or modified shall be determined not only by the formal description of the patent application itself, but also by comparing the substantial contents of the patent application identified by the specification and the entire drawing(s), including the detailed description of the invention. Even if the patent application is made after the correction, there is no change in the purpose or effect of the invention, but also by reflecting the contents described in the detailed description and drawing(s) of the invention. Thus, if there is no concern that the patent application before the correction would cause unexpected damages to a third party, the claim for correction does not constitute a substantial extension or modification of the patent application(see Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu1081, Apr

B. We examine the above legal principles and records.

As seen earlier, in light of the entire specification and drawings of the instant patent invention and technical awareness, it is clear that “X-Y plane” of the specification of the instant patent invention prior to the correction was erroneous and that the correct indication is “X-Z plane.”

Therefore, the key issue of this case is to correct the clerical error from the specification before and after the correction to the correct specification, the entire specification, etc., and to reflect the contents indicated in the detailed description and drawings without changing the purpose or effects of the invention before and after the correction, and thus, it does not constitute a substantial alteration or expansion of the scope of claims on the ground that there is no possibility that the clerical error may cause damage to a third

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on “the substantial expansion or modification of the scope of the patent claim” in the trial for correction.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)