[1] The method of determining the scope of a patent right and the method of identifying the invention subject to a petition for a trial to confirm the scope of a patent right

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the challenged invention does not belong to the equivalent scope of the patented invention because some compositions of the challenged invention and the patented invention correspond to the challenged invention are not identical and different from the principle of resolution for solving the task

[1] In principle, the scope of a patent right shall be determined by the matters described in the claim(s) of the specification. However, in cases where the technical composition of the patent is unknown or it is impossible to determine the scope of the patent even if it is known only by the description, the scope of the patent right shall be determined as a whole by supplementing the description by other descriptions in the specification, such as the detailed description or drawing. However, even in such cases, it is not allowed to expand the scope of the patent right by expanding the scope of the patent right or interpret it by limiting it by means of other descriptions in the specification. Thus, the scope of the patent right should be determined based on the description of the invention in question, which is the subject of a request for a trial for confirmation of the scope of the patent right

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the challenged invention does not belong to the equivalent scope of the patented invention because some of the elements corresponding to the challenged invention and the patented invention are not identical and different from the principle of resolution on the solution of the task

[1] Article 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu118 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1875) Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1040 delivered on April 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1361) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2856 delivered on June 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1539)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Patent Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2004Heo1717 decided Nov. 12, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The scope of a patent right is, in principle, determined by the matters described in the scope of a patent right. However, in cases where the technical composition of a patent is unknown or it is impossible to determine the scope of a patent even if the description alone is known, the scope of a patent right should be determined as a whole by supplementing the description by the other description, such as the detailed description or drawing, but even in such cases, it is not allowed to expand the scope of a patent by expanding the scope of a right or interpret it by limiting it (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu1088 delivered on May 22, 1998; 98Hu2856 delivered on June 1, 2001, etc.). As such, the scope of a patent right shall be determined based on the description of the invention subject to a claim for the confirmation of the scope of a patent right, and it is not allowed to change the above description by the drawing attached to the specification.

2. 위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건 특허발명의 첫 번째 구성요소인 ‘정방기의 상부에 설치된 크릴을 그 지주(S)를 중심으로 하여 좌, 우에 상부 크릴스탠드와 하부 크릴스탠드의 2개 층으로 구성하고 하부 크릴스탠드와 상부 크릴스탠드 사이에 형성된 경사각도가 0°≤θ≤45°가 되도록 하고 심사보빈은 상부 크릴스탠드에 고정된 펙(peg)에 상향으로 꽂는’ 구성(이하 ‘구성 1’이라 한다)은 확인대상발명의 ‘정방기의 상부에 설치된 크릴을 지주(10)를 중심으로 좌우에 우상측심사보빈(1), 우하측심사보빈(2), 좌상측심사보빈(3), 좌하측심사보빈(4)을 수평으로 2층 구조로 설치하고 그 하부에 하우측조사보빈(5,5’), 하좌측조사보빈(6,6’)을 좌우에 수직으로 설치하여 상기 보빈들은 펙(11)으로 지주(10)에 고정시켜 설치하는’ 구성(이하 ‘구성 가’라 한다)과 대응되는데, 확인대상발명의 설명서에 첨부된 제1도에는 상부 크릴스탠드의 심사보빈이 수평 방향에서 다소 경사진 것과 같이 도시되어 있으나 확인대상발명의 설명서에는 위와 같이 상부 크릴스탠드의 심사보빈들을 ‘수평으로’ 설치한다고 기재되어 있고, 나아가 제1도에 대한 설명에서도 ‘제1도에 나타난 바와 같이 … 우상측심사보빈(1), 우하측심사보빈(2), 좌상측심사보빈(3), 좌하측심사보빈(4)을 수평으로 2층 구조로 설치하고’라고 기재되어 있어 확인대상발명의 구성 가는 ‘상부 크릴스탠드의 심사보빈들을 수평으로 설치하는’ 구성이라고 보아야 할 것이다.

한편, 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서 중 발명의 상세한 설명 부분에는 구성 1의 ‘하부 크릴스탠드와 상부 크릴스탠드 사이에 형성된 경사각도가 0°≤θ≤45°가 되도록 하는’ 구성에 대하여 ‘θ가 45°를 초과하는 경우에는 심사보빈이 펙으로부터 빠져 나올 염려가 있다.’라고 기재하여 θ가 90°에 해당하게 되는 심사보빈의 수평 설치는 이 사건 특허발명의 과제해결원리를 사용하는 것이 아니라고 인정할 수 있을 것이며, 이에 반하여 확인대상발명의 구성 가는 심사보빈을 수평으로 설치함에 따라 심사보빈을 수직에 가깝게 설치하는 이 사건 특허발명의 구성 1에 비하여 당연히 심사의 이송경로가 짧아지게 되어 심사가 실내의 풍면 등의 영향을 받는 것을 줄일 수 있게 되는 작용효과를 갖게 되는 것이므로 위 각 구성은 해결하고자 하는 과제가 다른 구성들이라고 할 것이다.

Furthermore, the third component of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter “Composition 3”) includes the “Vi-type metal review Galer (21)” and “Vi-type synthetic resin review Galer (22,22)” of the challenged invention in question. The detailed description of the invention of this case among the specification of the patented invention of this case is corresponding to the composition (hereinafter “Composition Da”), including “Vi-type metal review Galer (21)” and “Vi-type synthetic resin review Galer (22,22).” Since the detailed description of the invention of this case is indicated as follows: “Rubber (8) is able to use rubber as a non-voluntary rubber among the aging materials, and it does not require a large amount of expenses, and it is excluded from the examination of other materials, it is not necessary to solve the above three different issues, since it is not necessary to reduce the cost, it is not necessary to solve the two three different issues.

3. If so, the composition of the challenged invention does not coincide with the composition 1 and 3 of the patented invention of this case, i.e., it does not change the principle of resolution on the resolution of the task of this case and determine whether it is possible or easy to redeem one another, and the challenged invention does not belong to the equivalent scope of the patented invention of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below which made the conclusion is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. 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.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)