Method of Interpretation of Claims

In principle, the scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the matters indicated in the scope of claims. Thus, if the technical scope is apparent only by the description, it shall not be limited or interpreted by another description in the specification. However, if the technical composition of the patented invention cannot be known or the technical scope cannot be determined by the description, it may be supplemented by another description in the specification, but in such a case, it shall not be permitted to expand or interpret the scope of claims pursuant to another description in the specification. Meanwhile, in a case where the scope of claims is indicated in the form “including any element.” Meanwhile, in a case where the scope of claims is indicated in the form “(s)”, even if all the elements indicated in the claim are not clearly indicated, it shall not change the situation “including any element,” and therefore, it shall be limited to the technical scope of the patented invention even if other elements

Articles 29(1) and (2), 42(4), and 97 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006)

Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu2072 Decided November 24, 2006 (Gong2007Sang, 72) Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2377 Decided February 10, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu1107 Decided July 14, 201

Samsung SDR Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo5592 Decided August 18, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The scope of protection of a patented invention is, in principle, determined by the scope of protection within the scope of claims. Thus, in a case where the technical scope is apparent only by the description, it shall not be limited or interpreted by other description. However, in a case where the technical composition of the patented invention is unknown only by the description, or where it is impossible to determine the technical scope, it may be supplemented by other description in the specification. In such a case, it is not allowed to expand the scope of claims by other description in the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Hu2377, Feb. 10, 201; 201Hu107, Jul. 14, 201). Meanwhile, in a case where the scope of claims is indicated in the form “including any other element,” the scope of claims does not change even if all of the elements explicitly stated in the scope of claims are added, it shall not be deemed that the technical scope of the patented invention includes any element.

2. (a) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the claim(1) of the instant patent application invention (patent No. 10-202-5280, Patent Application No. 10-202-5280, hereinafter “instant Claim(1) invention”) with the name “high molecule molecule molecule and its employed Lithium batteries,” can be known that the patent application invention(hereinafter “instant Claim(1 invention”) can be transferred to a high molecule molecule fluent fluorine (hereinafter “chemical 1 fluor”), “Lithium salt” and “non-water organic solvent(hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant components”) containing the outcome of the instant invention, with the permission of “TEA” (hereinafter “TMA), “tephe fluore fluore tephe tephy,” and “tephe tephe tephe tephe tephe tephe tephe tephephe te.).

However, insofar as the patent claim of the instant Claim No. 1 states that the composition “including the composition” of the instant invention as a result of the combination, the technical scope of the instant patent invention is also limited to the case where other ingredients are added in addition to the composition explicitly stated in the instant Claim. Of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, it is obvious that the subject of the instant Claim No. 1 invention contains a chemical compound of 1 mothers, public unity with other mothers, such as PEs added to the created product, and mutual aggression structure with high moleculors such as PMMA added to the created product, etc. can easily be expected by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technology to which the invention belongs (hereinafter “ordinary technician”). Thus, it is clear that the instant Claim No. 1 invention contains a mutual aggression structure, other than the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, including PMA, and its technical scope should not be limited to the scope of the instant invention. Accordingly, it is apparent that the scope of the instant Claim No. 1 invention contains a different structure from the scope of the instant Claim No. 1.

B. On the premise of the aforementioned determination, in comparison with the instant Claim No. 1 invention and the comparable invention, “TAEI” launched in the comparable invention is identical to “chemical-type 1 caps” and “emulative ingredients”. Thus, each of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is initiated in the comparable invention as it is, while it does not exclude the addition of PMMA as in the comparable invention, as it does not preclude the creation for the highly large part of the instant Claim No. 1 invention from adding the PMMA as in the comparable invention. Ultimately, the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention does not differ from the comparable invention. Moreover, since the effectiveness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, which is to improve flood characteristics, safety, and stalling characteristics, has no particular effect between the inventions, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied. Thus, the instant Claim No. 1 invention can easily be made from the comparable invention.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the claim of the instant Claim No. 1 is not denied based on the remaining comparable inventions, which limited and interpreted that adding a PMMA to the products to be developed to be developed to be developed to be divisible by the description in the specification. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the claim and determination of inventive step of the invention, and the lower court’s erroneous determination as above, without examining the inventive step of the remaining claims, should be entirely rejected in the event there is a ground for rejection even in a case where the claims are multiple claims. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the claim and determination of inventive step

3. Therefore, 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 Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)