2013Hu518 Confirmation of Scope of Right (Special Cases)

Copia Co., Ltd.

Patent Attorney Jin-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Sha Haba Haba Haba (Before the change: Sha Haba Haba Haba Haba Haba)

Attorney Park Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Patent Court Decision 2012Heo6700 Decided January 25, 2013

September 24, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

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

1. Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197, Nov. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that the detailed description of the invention shall state the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician") can easily implement the invention. This aims at clarifying the technical content and scope of the invention to be protected as a patent right by disclosing the contents of the invention in the patent application only with the specification so that a third party can easily understand it. As such, the degree of description required in the above provision refers to the extent that a person with ordinary skill can accurately understand the invention by the description of the specification without adding excessive or special knowledge in light of the technical level at the time of the application (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Hu2072, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Hu13, Oct. 28, 2011).

In addition, in the case of an invention of a product, the term "working of the invention" refers to an act of producing, using, etc. the product. Thus, in the case of an invention of a product expressed in the scope of the elements in numerical value as a whole, the requirement of the description under the above provision cannot be deemed to be satisfied. Therefore, even though it is not required to show the whole numerical scope limited to the scope of the claim in numerical value, the invention of a product expressed in numerical value limit does not require an example that shows the whole numerical scope limited to the scope of the claim. However, if an ordinary technician can not produce or use the product over the whole numerical scope without adding excessive experiments or special knowledge in light of the technology level at the time of application, it shall not be deemed that the requirement of the description under the above provision is not satisfied.

On the other hand, even if the description of the claim or the description of the invention is based on the detailed description of the claim or other drawings, if the part of the elements of the invention cannot be specified abstract or unclear, the scope of the right to the patented invention cannot be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 2002.).

6. 14. See Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu235, Dec. 27, 2001, etc.)

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

가. 원심 판시 이 사건 특허발명 ( 특허등록번호 생략 ) 의 특허청구범위 제1항 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 제1항 발명 ' 이라 한다 ) 은 2종 이상의 중합체를 혼합하여 제조되는 장척 ( 長尺 ) 의열 수축성 폴리에스테르계 필름을 감아서 이루어지는 ' 열 수축성 폴리에스테르계 필름 롤 ' 이라는 물건의 발명으로서, 그 특허청구범위에는 위 필름 롤이 다음의 요건들을 모두 만족하는 것으로 특정되어 있다 .

In other words, in all samples produced well in the normal field film, (1) the heat reduction rate of the maximum water reduction direction within the range of 【3% from the average value (hereinafter referred to as 'requirements '), (2) the content ratio of the maximum secondary components unit within the range of 【2:0 per cent from the average value, and (3) the heat reduction rate of the direction directly connected to the maximum water reduction direction enters the range of 【1 per cent from the average value (hereinafter referred to as 'requirements 'requirements 'if any').

B. In relation to the above requirements, the detailed description of the patented invention of this case includes the technical feature that sets forth the requirement of 'the uniform creation' through the film charging and the requirement of 'the uniform heat reduction rate', by applying the detailed manufacturing methods to suppress the changes in the margin of the film surface temperature of the most subordinate constituent group and the process, which sets forth that the change in the heat reduction rate would cause the deterioration of appearance.

As can be seen, it is a technical task that can achieve various manufacturing conditions in relation to the requirement of the Na Na Na Na. The detailed description of the patented invention of this case is that the following manufacturing methods are presented as its solution: (a) it is narrow and narrow to the numerical scope of the Na Na Na, so that it can indicate uniform and uniform heat accumulation rate throughout the whole area; and (b) it is narrow to narrow to the numerical scope of the Na Na Na Da Da.

In other words, (1) The method of manufacturing for uniform formation (hereinafter referred to as "the method of creation") is that (2) the average length, etc. of raw material chips for a primary constituent unit is used for a secondary constituent unit of chips within a certain range, 'the uniformity of the form of chips' and 'the appropriateness of the shape of chips whose slope angle is above a certain level' and 'the appropriateness of the size of chier' that the chier is used within a certain range of the size of the voltager', and (3) the method of manufacturing for equal formation (hereinafter referred to as "the method of creation"), which is (2) the change in the surface temperature of films measured at a voluntary point in the process of heat treatment after the year and year, is opened within the scope of average temperature.

C. However, the following are examined in light of the detailed description of the instant patent invention in relation to the manufacturing method.

(1) First of all, 1 to 5 cases are followed only by the formation method and the heat control method is not followed, and physical devices specified as the result of the measurement are entered into the numerical scope of the b. The numerical scope of the c.

(1) The average value is less than 0% of the average value, which is less than 4% of the average value, and is less than 0% of the average value, and is less than 8% of the average value. (2) In addition, it is less than 0% of the average value, which is less than 4% of the average value, and it is less than 0% of the average value. (a) The value of the water used within 0% of the total value, which is less than 4% of the total value, is less than 0% of the total value. (b) The value of the water used within 0% of the total value, which is less than 4% of the total value, is less than 8% of the total value.

- It is merely stated that the maximum value is 3% and that it is 0.5% of the average value + that is, the narrow numerical range, i.e., the average value exceeds 0.3% and enters the range of less than 0.5% + there is no example in the implementation.

(3) Although the circumstances are different, the detailed description of the patented invention of this case requires one of the methods of creation if it is to equalize the creation of films. If it is desirable to concurrently employ the heat control method in order to equal the heat accumulation rate, it is merely stated that it is desirable to restrain the change of the heat accumulation and to control the change of the film creation, and it is not any implication or implication that can be seen that the patent claim can achieve the difference of the physical nature of the remaining numerical range than that that that can be seen as seen above among the numerical range of each numerical range between the two values that can be seen as being carried out as above, by more strictly applying various manufacturing conditions such as the method of creation and heat control.

Rather, while applying the heat control method more than the implementation example 7, the film surface temperature was more uniform, and the film creation is also uniform. However, the implementation example 9 shows that all the heat reduction rate in the direction of the maximum water reduction direction, which is directly linked to the maximum water reduction direction or the maximum water reduction direction, is not uniform.

3. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the claim scope of the instant Claim No. 1 cannot be produced throughout the entire numerical scope limited to the claim scope of the instant Claim, on the ground that the description alone does not add excessive experiments or special knowledge in light of the level of technology at the time of filing the application. Accordingly, the claim No. 1 invention of the instant case does not meet the specification requirements under Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act, and thus, its technical scope cannot be specified, and its scope of right cannot be recognized.

Thus, the challenged invention in the decision of the court below does not belong to the scope of the right without the necessity of comparison with the Claim No. 1 invention in this case. Nevertheless, the court below determined that the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the Claim No. 1 invention in this case on the premise that the scope of the right to the Claim No. 1 invention in this case can be recognized on the ground that the claim No. 1 invention in this case means only the scope of the physical nature which is technically practicable, unlike the description.

Therefore, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification requirements of a patented invention and the recognition of the scope of rights, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below, and remand the case to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok