[1] The method of determining the scope of protection of a patented invention and the method of interpreting the claims

[2] The case holding that the invention in question does not constitute an object used exclusively for the working of a patented invention whose name "the combination of the name of "the combination of the Madra Solo's Mad's Mad

[1] Article 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 127 subparagraph 2 of the Patent Act and Article 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1040 delivered on April 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1361) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2351 delivered on November 14, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 65) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2856 delivered on June 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1539) (Gong2006Hu2240 delivered on December 22, 2006)

Master Industrial Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Final seat (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu1109 Delivered on July 15, 2005

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo6863 Decided June 7, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The scope of protection of a patented invention is determined according to the scope of the claim, and it is not permitted to limit or expand the scope of the claim according to the detailed description, drawing, etc., barring special circumstances. However, the interpretation of the scope of the claim should be objectively and rationally after considering the technical significance of the invention, based on the general meaning of the text, and considering the detailed description, drawing, etc. of the invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240, Dec. 22, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the plaintiff's patent invention of this case (No. 101374) with the name "a method combines with an anti-explosive acid." The claim 1 is "conscing the body of the holes with an anti-explosive body" that is generally understood as "conscing the body of both sides" and "conscing the shape of an anti-explosive body with an anti-explosive shape" that is commonly understood as "conscing the body of other things" and "conscing the shape of an anti-explosive body with an anti-explosive shape" that is separated from the shape of an anti-explosive body in the form of an anti-explosive body, and thus, it shall be understood as "conscing the shape of an anti-explosive body with an anti-explosive body with an anti-explosive shape." In relation to the detailed description of the invention, it shall be interpreted as covering the shape of an anti-exper.

In preparation for the invention subject to confirmation by the defendant, based on the above interpretation of the claim 1 of the patent invention of this case, the part of the invention subject to confirmation cannot be found in the shape of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body, and the part of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of

Nevertheless, the court below erred in interpreting the composition of the "Bedingday" of the claim 1 of the patented invention of this case due to the lack of strings, and concluded that the "Bedingday" of the claim 1 of this case is nothing more than the mere alteration of the diameter of the "Bedging hole". On this premise, the court below determined that the invention of this case is an object used only for the implementation of the claim 1, and held that the invention of this case constitutes the scope of protection. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the scope of claims and the scope of protection of the patented invention. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)