[1] The meaning of "a matter disclosed in the specification or drawing(s) originally attached" under Article 47(2) of the Patent Act

[2] The case holding that a correction of the specification of a patented invention with the name "St. Sheet part Sheet" exceeds the scope of the specification initially attached to the patent application, and it constitutes an addition of new matters and thus constitutes a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Patent Act

[1] Matters stated in the specification or drawings initially attached to Article 47(2) of the Patent Act (hereinafter “the first specification, etc.”) shall be deemed to be matters explicitly stated in the first specification, etc. or, even if not explicitly stated, if a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains is included, it shall be deemed to be the same as those stated in the first specification, etc. in light of the technical formula at the time of the application.

[2] The case holding that where the specification initially attached to the patent application of the patented invention is added only to the phrase "a license (or a license to detect snows) to detect snows existing between the date and the fixed date (or a license to detect snows)" with respect to the snow strings, and it constitutes a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Patent Act, since it goes beyond the scope described in the specification initially attached to the patent application and constitutes an addition of new description and thus constitutes a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Patent Act, if snows exist between the metal strings in the form of a two metal strings due to a change in strings, and if there is snows between them, a change in strings formed by the metal strings, and accordingly, measurement of the current changes in the exchange circuits."

[1] Article 47(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 47(2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Hu2781 decided Sep. 27, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2620) Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu638, 645 decided Feb. 28, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 942)

Azcoa Ltd.

Alternative Engineering Corporation, Inc.

Patent Court Decision 2004Heo7845 Decided October 6, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Article 47(2) of the Patent Act provides that “an amendment to the specification or drawing(s) shall be made within the scope of the features described in the specification or drawing(s) originally attached to the patent application.” Here, matters described in the specification or drawing(s) originally attached to the patent application (hereinafter “the first specification, etc.”) shall be understood as having the same same effect as those described in the first specification, etc., in light of the technological sense at the time of the application, if a person who has ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) is not explicitly stated in the first specification, etc. or explicitly stated.

Based on the above legal principles, the court below added the statement of the patent invention of this case (patent number omitted) to the patent application of this case (patent number omitted) with the name "Franchisor partially melting equipment for electric scrap metal" to the effect that the patent application of this case (patent number omitted) only "hacks (or hackers for detecting snow)" was "hacks that can detect snow existing between Franchisor and fixed date" in relation to the patent application of this case. The last amendment was made, and "hacksor" did not constitute an additional element of Article 47 (2) of the Patent Act, as it did not constitute a new element of the patent invention of this case as alleged in the ground of appeal, since it exceeded the scope of the specification stated in the patent application, and it did not constitute an additional element of Article 47 (2) of the Patent Act as it did not constitute a violation of the aforementioned new element of the patent invention.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the detailed description of the patented invention of this case does not specify the methods of embodying the patented invention of this case, the communication means between the Center and the control department, and the combination and interaction between each component, and it is difficult for a person with ordinary skill to understand the patented invention of this case accurately and accurately without adding special knowledge to the level of technology at the time of application based on the detailed description of the invention.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the patented invention of this case did not meet the requirements for detailed description of the invention is just, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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 Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)