[1] The requirements for recognizing the reaction material of the (A) invention as an equivalent material to the reaction material of the patented invention where the (a) invention is identical to the starting material and the target material of the patented invention; however, in the reaction material, the reaction material of the (a) invention is equivalent to the reaction material of the patented invention

[2] The case holding that the (a) invention cannot be deemed to be an invention different from the patented invention on the ground that the starting material and objective material of the (a) invention are identical to the patented invention and the reaction material is equivalent to the reaction material of the patented invention and the process that the reaction intermediate substance is obtained through the provisional decomposition of the reaction material is merely an addition to the simple tolerance method

[1] The patented invention is identical with the patented invention, the starting material and the target material are identical, but even if the elements of the patented invention are converted into different elements in the reaction material, if the technical idea or task solution principle of the two inventions are common or identical, and the elements converted into the (a) invention show the same effect as the elements of the patented invention, and if the elements converted into the (a) invention reveal the same effect as the elements of the patented invention, and if the said elements themselves are obvious to the extent that they can be easily drawn if they have ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, they are not known to or known at the time of the application for the patented invention, nor can they easily come from them by the party. Furthermore, unless there are special circumstances such as where the elements converted into the (a) invention through the procedure for the application for the patented invention in question are excluded from the scope of the patent claim, the elements converted to the (a) invention should be regarded as equivalent to those of the patented invention.

[2] The case holding that the (a) invention cannot be deemed to be an invention different from the patented invention on the ground that the starting material and objective material of the (a) invention are identical to the patented invention and the reaction material is equivalent to the reaction material of the patented invention and the process that the reaction intermediate substance is obtained by chemical decomposition is merely an addition to the simple tolerance means

[1] Articles 29(2) and 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 29(2) and 97 of the Patent Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1202 delivered on October 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2991) Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2194 delivered on July 4, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1846)

U.S. S.C. (Patent Attorney Kim Jae-cheon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The term "abricated" means "abricated" means "abricated" means "abricated" means "abricated" means "

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 95Na232 dated May 31, 1997

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

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

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, while comparing the invention (A) of this case (patent registration number omitted) with the claimant, both inventions are identical to the starting material and target material by means of manufacturing the general fluor (I), but the patented invention of this case is in response to the general formula (III), while (a) invention of this case is in response to the starting material to obtain the target material by reaction with the general formula (III), it is judged that (b) invention of this case is no longer identical to the patented invention of this case (4-Stockholm) invention of this case with the general formula (IV) 1- chloro-7-(4-1- Plouse) of this case (4-diloyth) invention of this case, which is not identical to the patented invention of this case, and is no longer identical to the patented invention of this case, (4) invention of this case with the target material reaction, and thus, it is more likely that the target material of this case is identical to the patented invention of this case.

2. According to the record, the patented invention of this case is related to the manufacturing method of 7-Amino-1-Llosolo-4-Llodine-1, 4-didineidine (quilodine-3-carbane)-3-carbane acid. The claim(s) of this case is characterized by the reaction of general formula (II) 7-Amino-1-Llodideprolodine-1-Llodine-4-Llodine proteine-4-dilodine proteine-14-dilodine proteine-11 claims, and material of this case includes the claims of this case is considerably broad, and the claim(s)-1-Llodine reaction-1-4 of general formula (I)-prolodine-1-prolodine reaction-6-4 of the patented invention is the most broad, and the claim(s)-1-4 of this case's patented invention is the invention(s)-1-4 of this case's qui reaction-1-4-prolodide reaction.

[This, in general formula (II), A is CR3, R3 is L-H, X is C-H, X is especially C-L, and R is a starting material where hydrogen is hydrogen, 1-Sroprocoppropy-7-loro-6-prop-pline-1, 4-dilosophine-3-diviet acid, NR4 where R1 and R2 are attached in general formula (III) together with NR4 where R1 and R2 are attached, and 1-solocoppropy-7-1-fluxine-6-1-4-4-4-diviol acid-4-3-ploricane of general formula (I) which is a target material (I) in response to the reaction material (i.e., Pepheine) of hydrogen.

(A) On the other hand, as shown in the manual, the invention consists of eight processes as a whole as shown in subparagraph (a). Among them, the most appropriate way to prepare for the patented invention of this case is part of the 7 process and the 8 process, which begin with the same starting material as the patented invention of this case and finally obtains the same target material, and is part of the 8 process, which is the process to make the final use of the same target material, and the response formula as follows: (a) an intermediate chain (1-Sarichpropropropyo -7-(4-xiopropyo -1-ploak)-6-fluor 4-did-4-dilosophine quilosophine -3-carbane acid] is obtained (7).

3. It shall be deemed to prepare for the patented invention of this case and (a) invention.

The two inventions are composed of acquisition of the same target substance (proproplosin) by using the same starting material (1-Sachpropropy-7-chloro-6 luxio-1, 4-didine-4-didine quilosophine-3-carb acid). However, with respect to the patented invention of this case, the patented invention of this case is derived from a starting material by reactioning skin to a fluxin, and (a) the patented invention of this case is different from the composition in that it obtains an intermediate body in response to the starting material and obtains an target substance by decompositioning the reaction intermediate (in the case of the patented invention of this case, the patented invention of this case does not contain any restrictive elements as to the fuel, temperature, time, etc. in the manufacturing process). Thus, even if there is no difference in the composition of the two inventions.

However, as in the case of this case, even if the (a) invention is identical to the patented invention, the starting material and the target material are identical, but the elements of the (a) invention are identical to those of the two inventions, or are identical to those of the two inventions, and the elements of the (a) invention are identical to those of the elements of the patented invention; (b) the elements of the (a) invention are identical to those of the two inventions; and (c) the elements of the (a) invention are identical to those of the patented invention; and (d) the said substitution itself is obvious to the extent that they can be easily derived from the ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention belongs (hereinafter referred to as the "party business operator"), unless there are special circumstances such as the description already known at the time of the application for the patented invention, or the elements of the (a) invention are not easily derived from the other party business operator; and (a) the elements of the (a) invention shall be deemed equivalent to those of the patented invention.

(A) On the other hand, if we look back to the instant invention, it is deemed that the solution principle of technical idea or task of the instant invention is the same in that (i) it is an invention with respect to the method of manufacturing fluoral agents identical to the instant invention, and (ii) it is not possible to see that the instant invention has the same effect as the instant invention, as the initial substance, as it is widely known to the N-Stockholm reaction of the instant invention (i) it is an identical reaction to the instant invention, and (ii) it is difficult to see that the instant invention has the effect of treating fluoral reaction of the instant invention as an initial substance, and (iii) it is difficult to see that there is no different effect from the instant patent invention as the initial substance, on the other hand, it is hard to see that the instant invention has the effect of treating fluoral reaction of the instant invention as an initial substance, and (iv) it can be seen that there is no difference between the initial substance and fluoral reaction of the instant invention as an initial substance.

(A) Ultimately, the invention is merely an attachment of a simple means of tolerance, which is a process of acquiring the target substance through the provisional decomposition of the reaction intermediate substance in the invention of this case, and the invention of this case cannot be deemed to be a different invention, and thus (a) invention of this case falls within the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the (Ga) invention is different from the patent invention of this case on the ground that the effects of both inventions are different due to differences in the manufacturing process as to whether both inventions pass through the middle body without any particular ground. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of the scope of patent right, failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the decision, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court corresponding to the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)