Article 15 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (Ordinance No. 401 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 301 of December 31, 1973) means the meaning of

The amendment to the main contents of Article 15(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (Ordinance No. 401 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 31 December 31, 1973) refers to the amendment to the extent that it is impossible to recognize the identity of the contents of the initial patent application by comparing the specification and drawings attached to the initial application with those of the specifications and drawings as amended later with those of the initial application. If the amendment does not reach the extent, the amendment does not constitute the change to the main contents

Article 15(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (Ordinance No. 1401 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 1401), Article 10-3 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu11 Decided June 14, 1983

P. P.O. Patent Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 396, Nov. 26, 1984

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the original invention of this case, which was filed on November 7, 1978 (Patent Application Number omitted), shall aim at realizing the purpose of the device for detop sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp s.sp sp.sp sp sp.sp sp.s

However, according to Articles 8 and 2658 of the former Patent Act (Law No. 2658, Dec. 31, 1973) and Article 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act (Presidential Decree No. 6978, Dec. 21, 1973), a person who intends to obtain a patent shall submit a brief description of the invention 2. The title of the invention; 3. A detailed description of the invention; 4. A detailed description of the invention shall be accompanied by the specification and drawings stating the scope, etc. of the patent claims; and therefore, the description shall state the purpose, composition, effects, and effects of the invention to the extent that the person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can easily practice the invention (Article 8(3) of the current Patent Act). Meanwhile, the amendment of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (Article 401 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 401, Dec. 31, 1973) which entered into force at the time of the original invention shall not be deemed to be a new amendment to the specification and its substance.

This is clear in Article 10-3 of the current Patent Act that "an increase, decrease or change in the scope of a patent claim within the scope of the matters described in the specification or drawings initially accompanying the application before the service of a certified copy of the decision on public notice of application, shall be deemed not to change the substance of the specification," and it is not interpreted differently under the old law without such provision.

According to the records, after filing the original invention on November 7, 1978, the applicant filed the original invention and then November 25, 1982, the applicant “This source is related to the devices of defrying by alteration of pulp code used in the PABX telephone exchange machine, but only the outline system without detailed specifications of each circuit, and the claims are unclear, and the claims amount also includes the operating relationship without requesting improvement of the drawing number, and the claims amount also includes the claims amount. It was submitted the amendment on July 10, 1982 after receiving the notification of the grounds for rejection on the ground that “the claims amount also includes the claims amount.” The court below maintained the original description of the original invention and subsequent amendment on November 10, 1982, compared with the contents described in the original description of the amendment, and did not have any substantial changes to the extent that the amendment can be identical with a mistake in the original description, and if it did not contain any substantive reasons for the amendment, the court below did not explain the purport of the original amendment.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)