[1] The case holding that where a correction of a patented invention reduces the upper concept stated in the claim(s) into a subordinate concept, if only the claim(s) before and after the correction is based, it constitutes reduction of the claim(s) formally, but it is a case where the claim(s) is practically expanded or modified since the part not supported by the initial specification is added by the correction(s)

[2] The case holding that a patent cannot be granted at the time of patent application under Article 136 (3) of the former Patent Act because the patented invention after the correction has been made due to the detailed description of the invention and the lack of the scope of the claims

[1] The case holding that the correction of a patented invention, whose name is AS Esteph equipment and organic gymnas made by it, is a correction that reduces "AS Esteph equipment" as a subordinate concept, which is the upper concept as stated in the claim prior to the correction, and if it is formally based only on the claim prior to and after the correction, it constitutes a reduction of the scope of claims, even if it falls under the scope of claims prior to and after the correction, the correction of the patented invention does not start at all in the specification of the patented invention prior to the correction, on the ground that the four types of notice Esteph equipment, which are newly included in the patented invention after the correction, are not obvious in the specification, and thus, it does not constitute a case where the scope of claims is substantially expanded or altered since the correction of the patented invention is made by adding the portions not

[2] The case holding that since the detailed description of the invention in the specification after the correction of the patented invention does not state any specific form of notification about the manufacturing method or the manufacturing process thereof, it should be deemed that a person with ordinary knowledge in the pertinent technical field did not state the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention to the extent that it can be easily implemented only by the description, and the claim is not supported by the detailed description, and there is no error in the description, the patented invention after the correction constitutes a case where a patent cannot be granted at the time of patent application under Article 136 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 5329 of Apr. 10, 197)

[1] Article 136 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 5329 of Apr. 10, 1997) / [2] Articles 42 (3) and (4), and 136 (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 5329 of Apr. 10, 197)

Two Industrial Co., Ltd. (Patent Dan Patent Firm, Patent Dan Patent LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Chang High Chemical Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Kim Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Sat and Dench Gaba (Attorney Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

August 26, 2005

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 28, 2005 on the case No. 2004Da1939 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

[Evidences: A. 1 to 5, 16, 17]

A. Patent invention of this case

The defendant's patented invention of this case [registration No. 187566, Aug. 19, 191 (registration No. 18756, Aug. 20, 199; Jan. 5, 199)] is related to ester Escurine products with a relatively high shock rate and high shock rate, which are used as luminous materials for mecherical materials or optical diskss, optical fibers, optical fiber fibers, and luminous materials, the name of the invention is alry Estephurine products and organic grams for optical materials composed thereof. The patent claim (registration No. 2003Ma2378, Jul. 28, 2004; the trial decision was corrected by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal's ruling No. 2003Ma2378, Jan. 28, 2004; and the decision was finalized on Aug. 28, 2004).

(b) Cited inventions;

(1) Cited Invention 1

On May 18, 1970, the Japanese Patent Gazette (No. 45-13808, No. 16), published in the Japanese Patent Gazette (Public Notice Number No. 45-13808, No. 16), contains a description that it can be obtained at will by means of making polyprophol sate, a light light, with at least 3 polychlorates and glycerates, or a polyphol terol terate made of these composites and 2 chlorates, and the detailed description contains a description that it can be obtained at will by using the kind of polyphol or polyphol steher and mixed quantity change, and that it can be obtained by using the e.g., polyprophol sate, a combination of polyphol and glycerates, a combination of these composites, or a polyphol terate, and that it can be made by using the e.g., 1).

(2) Cited Invention 2

The publication of May 8, 1990 and the publication of the Patent Gazette (Registration No. 150408, A17) registered on June 12, 1998 includes the electrical characteristics, heat resistance and internal shockness, the repetition of a specific structural formula, the framework of the Aryrythrafthal spool and its manufacturing methods, and the detailed description indicates that it may be mixed with non-sporas resin or dalthalate balance, because it has a proper double combination.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

(1) Corrective decision

The defendant filed a petition for correction trial to request correction of the claim(attached Form 1) of the initial specification of the patented invention in this case as shown in attached Form 2. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated it as 2003Da2378, and on July 28, 2004, the above petition for correction trial was reduced, and the new purpose, technical composition, and effect cannot be deemed to be added or deleted, and the claim cannot be deemed to be substantially expanded or modified. After correction, the decision was rendered to correct the specification of the patented invention in the same manner as the claim(s) stated in attached Form 2 on the ground that the matters described in the claim(s) cannot be deemed to be patentable at the time of patent application. The above decision became final and conclusive on August 4, 2004.

(2) Request for a trial on invalidation of correction

On February 28, 2005, the plaintiff filed a request for a trial for invalidation of correction on the ground that the correction of the specification of the patented invention of this case is practically expanding the scope of the claim, and the scope of the claim after the correction is impossible, and the above correction is lacking in originality or inventive step, and thus, the Patent Tribunal reviewed it as No. 1939 on the ground that the above correction should be invalidated. The plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's request for a trial on the following grounds.

D. Summary of the grounds for the instant trial decision

(1) After the correction, the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case was limited to ① (a) the ingredients of which are indicated in the structural formula I through III from Esteping machine to at least one repeated unit, ② the components were deleted, ③ the occupied range of the product was reduced from 200 to 50,00cP to 200 to 200 to 00cP; ③ the corrected contents ① the Esteping machine is limited to the specific structural formula; ② the corrected contents are limited to the Esteping machine; ② the corrected contents are to eliminate the (c) component, which is an optional element, so it constitutes reduction of the scope of the claim.

(2) In the specification of the patented invention of this case, (a) the structural formula I or III, which is the repeated structure unit of ingredients, is reasonable to interpret (c) ingredients as voluntary ingredients, and in relation to the point of occupation of the product, the specification of the patented invention of this case states that "it is desirable to manufacture the product so as to be 200 to 50,000cc (30cc) and in particular 50 to 5,000cc (30cc)", and the 1 to 10ccP are within the scope of 420 to 1,200ccP, the invention of this case after the correction is merely reduced and does not change technical matters by deviating from the purpose of the invention. Thus, it cannot be said that the expansion or alteration of the claim of this case is not caused.

(3) In light of the fact that the point of the instant Claim No. 1 invention after the correction includes 200 to 5,000cP from the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the 10,000-20,000-CP is also indicated as the place of commercial luminous material use, it cannot be deemed that the non-exclusive invention is included, and that the 2nd product contained in the specification of the instant patent invention contains more ingredients than the 2nd product of reference, so it cannot be deemed impossible to implement the patented invention because the addition of the 2nd component and its effects are inconsistent with the description and the result of the experiment.

(4) In technical invention 1 and 2, the product of the instant Claim 1, which contains only the manufacturing method of the Estegyegyegyegygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygygyg.

(5) Therefore, since the correction of the patented invention of this case constitutes a lawful correction that satisfies the provisions of Article 136(1) through (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 5329, Apr. 10, 1997; hereinafter the same), the plaintiff's assertion that the correction should be invalidated is without merit.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for revocation of the trial decision by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

(1) In light of (c) the relevance to the technical effect of the patented invention of this case, the description of the claim(c) prior to the correction, and the process of claiming priority to the patented invention of this case, etc., the elements of the claim(1) invention of this case prior to the correction shall be deemed to be an essential element not including 0%, and thus, the deletion of (c) ingredients from the claim(s) invention of this case by the correction shall be practically expanded or modified.

(2) In the invention of Paragraph 1 of this case before the correction, the scope of the right should be limited to the portion supported by the detailed description of the invention, since the (a) component of the instant Claim 1 prior to the correction is very comprehensive and comprehensive. The (1) component of the instant Claim 1, which was commenced in the detailed description, shall be interpreted as one repeated unit among the repeated units I, II, and III. After the correction, at least one repeated unit indicated in the structural formula I, III, I, II, III, and III, in addition to the structural formula 1, II, III, and III, it is interpreted as having one repeated unit, and the repeated unit with such mixture is not supported by the detailed description and license of the invention, so the correction is not substantially supported by the detailed description and license of the instant Claim 1, which is not substantially modified by the detailed description and license of the invention.

(3) The scope of the Claim No. 1 invention after the correction includes an invention which is still impossible to be executed in conformity with the main form, and the scope of the invention after the correction includes an invention which is merely 420-1,200cP, and is merely an invention which is difficult to be implemented by a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field in question to the extent that it can easily implement the invention in question, and in light of the description No. 13, 14, 28, and evidence No. 23-1 through No. 4, the scope of the Claim No. 1 invention after the correction does not include an appropriate working level to manufacture an alpheth, and the scope of the invention after the correction includes an invention which is not possible to be executed in conformity with the main form, and the purpose and effect of the invention in question cannot be seen as being carried out in conformity with the description No. 1 of the Claim No. 2 after the correction cannot be seen as being supported by the detailed description of the invention in question (the description No. 2003 after the correction).

(4) According to the detailed description of the patented invention in this case, in order to achieve the effectiveness of the patented invention in this case, it is necessary to set up a reasonable range of dives and moleculars to the appropriate range. Since dives and dives of Paragraph (1) after the correction do not limit the dives and moleculars of (a) ingredients, the invention in this case includes not only an invention that cannot be implemented but also an invention that includes matters not supported by the detailed description, and it cannot be deemed that the purpose, composition and effect of the invention are described to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the patented invention in this case pertains can easily implement the patented invention.

(5) In light of the experiment result (Evidence A20), the product composed of (a) and (b) ingredients of the patented invention of this case includes cases where it is not possible to increase the inferior shockness due to the excessive use of (b) ingredients. This is inconsistent with the description of (a) and (b) relationship, and the content of (b) ingredients of reference 2) ingredients using the same satisfy in the detailed description of the patented invention of this case and (b) ingredients of reference 25.9 weight per 25.9% per reference and expected 20% per 20% per implementation. Thus, in accordance with the role of (b) ingredients in the description, it should be higher than 2 - referring to those of the patented invention of this case, which are easily described 3,200 C. 20cc. 690cc., and thus, it may not be easily known that the product of this case remains 1) or 500cc. , and thus, the description of the patented invention of this case may not be known.

(6) The structural formula â………………………………………â……â……â……â………â……â…………ââââââââââ………ââââââââââââââ…………âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

(7) The combination of "diryphalphalphyphyphs + Polysphyphyphyphste", which are the intermediate products of the comparable invention 1, constitutes the instant Claim 1 invention after the correction, and the creation cost also constitutes the creation cost of the instant Claim 1 invention, and the creation cost of which belongs to the creation cost of the instant Claim 1 invention, and which can be made all of various kinds of materials. The "diryphalphalphalphalphalphalphs of the comparable invention 2" of the instant Claim 1 invention after the correction falls under subparagraph (a) of the instant Claim 1 invention, and in the process, (a) + (b) composition of the composition of the instant Claim 2's "diryphalphalphyphyphol" is created. Since the creation of the instant Claim 1 invention after the correction is one of the elements of the instant Claim 1 invention, the creation cost of the instant Claim 1 invention after the correction is already made in accordance with the comparison 1 and 2, and the addition ratio of the instant Claim 1 to 100.

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether the correction constitutes a reduction in the scope of claims under Article 136(1)1 of the former Patent Act

Article 136(1) of the former Patent Act provides that where the scope of a patent is reduced with respect to the specification or drawing(s) of a patented invention, where a clerical error is corrected, a petition for correction may be filed only where a clerical error is clarified. We examine whether the correction by a trial decision as seen earlier constitutes a reduction of the scope of a patent which is one of the requirements for correction.

The summary of the correction decision mentioned above is that the notice of the combination of (a) component in the claim(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(c)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s

Among them, the corrective matters ① adds a limitation to ① “a (a) a notice combined with the end group, and at least one repeated unit indicated in the structural formula I or III following the correction.” Based only on the claim before and after the correction, the above correction is deemed to have reduced the upper concept comprehensively recorded as a whole as a subordinate concept with a specific chemical structure by further embodying the end structure of the Esteme and its repeated unit. Thus, the corrective matters ① are deemed to constitute a reduction in the scope of claims in form.

2. (2) The elements of paragraph 1 of this case before the correction are deleted. The elements of paragraph 1 of this case are stated as "not less than 40 % of synthetic scars in the consistent capacity of at least one unit selected from among vinyl bet, Notification bet, Methalthalate and betrylates" with respect to (c) ingredients, and it is unclear whether (c) ingredients are indispensable for the composition of the whole unit without any special indication on the lower limit line. In the invention of paragraph 1 of this case before the correction, if (c) ingredients are necessarily required for the composition of the whole unit, they are deleted from the elements of the claim, but if it is a voluntary component that can be selected as required for the composition of (c), it shall be deemed to have been deleted part of the selective invention, and thus it shall be deemed to have been reduced by the scope of the claim.

Therefore, as to whether the elements of the Claim 1 invention prior to the correction are essential components or discretionary components, the claims of the Claim 1 invention prior to the correction include only that the claims of the Claim 1 contains (c) components together with the elements of (a) and (b), and that the upper limit and the lower limit are specified in both (a) and (b), and there is no limit with regard to the lower limit.

However, according to the claim(s) of this case before the correction, since the composition of the invention(s) of this case(s)(1)(a), (b), and (c)(c)(s)(i)(s)(i)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(1)(s)(s)(s)(s)))(s)(s)(s)(s)))(s)(s))(s))(s)(s)))(s))(s)(s))(s))(s))(s)(s)))(s))))(s)(s)(s)))(s)(s)(s))(s))(s))(s)))(s)(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)))(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))))))(s.....................

In examining the contents of the claims and the detailed description of the Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim prior to the correction as a whole, the (c) component described as the "40% from the Claim for Claim 1 prior to the correction to the "40% from the Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim for Claim prior to the correction" shall be deemed to be an optional constituent component that may include a maximum of 40% from the whole composition even if it is either 0% of or mixed with 0% from the whole composition, or even if it is mixed with a maximum of 40% from the whole composition. Accordingly, the (a), (b), and (c) invention for Claim for Claim 1 prior to the correction shall be deemed to include both the composition consisting of (a), (b) composition consisting of only the component, and the selective form invention consisting of two parts of

In addition, since it is apparent that the scope of the product is reduced from 200 to 50,00cP to 200 to 5,000cP, the amendment constitutes reduction of the scope of the claim, and the amendment is the deletion of both paragraphs 2 to 6 and 10, which are subordinate claims.

Therefore, all the corrective matters of the specification of the patented invention of this case by the corrective trial decision shall be deemed to constitute a case where the scope of claims under Article 136 (1) 1 of the former Patent Act is reduced.

(2) Whether the correction is a substantial expansion or modification of the scope of claims under Article 136(2) of the former Patent Act

In determining whether the scope of a patent claim is extended or modified, it is reasonable to determine whether the scope of the patent claim constitutes an extension or modification substantially compared to the entire specification, including the detailed description of the invention, and if the scope of the patent claim is corrected, it is the requirement of the patent and whether the patent can be granted at the time of the patent application (see Supreme Court Decision 9Hu2815, Dec. 11, 2001). If a new description is included in the scope of the patent claim without the commencement of the specification prior to the correction and it is impossible to regard the specification as self-specific, in light of the opportunity for correction, it is newly created an invention and actually expanded or modified the scope of the patent claim. In the case of a correction to reduce the upper concept described in the claims prior to the correction into a lower concept, if it falls under the scope of the patent claim prior to the correction without the commencement of the specification prior to the correction, and if the subsequent concept cannot be seen to be clearly defined in the specification prior to the correction, it shall be deemed that the subsequent concept does not actually be amended or modified by the first correction.

Among the matters to be corrected in the specification of the patented invention of this case by the corrective trial decision, the matters to be corrected are partially deleted, and the matters to be corrected are the simple reduction of the numerical scope, and the matters to be corrected are the deletion of the claims itself.

정정사항 ①은 (a)성분을 '알릴에스테르 올리고머'에서 '말단에 결합된 알릴기 및 하기 구조식 Ⅰ 내지 Ⅲ으로 표시되는 적어도 하나의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머'(하기 구조식 Ⅰ 내지 Ⅲ은 생략한다)로 정정하는 것으로서, 앞서 본 바와 같이 포괄적으로 기재된 상위개념을 구체적인 화학구조를 갖는 하위개념으로 감축하는 것이므로 형식적으로는 특허청구범위의 감축에 해당한다고 할 것이나, 한편 정정사항 ①에 의해 정정된 이 사건 제1항 발명의 (a)성분은 "말단에 결합된 알릴기 및 하기 구조식 Ⅰ 내지 Ⅲ으로 표시되는 '적어도 하나의 반복단위'를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머"라고 기재하고 있으므로, 그 문언상으로 볼 때 (a)성분의 알릴에스테르 올리고머는, ㉮ 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉯ 구조식 Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉰ 구조식 Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉱ 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉲ 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머, ㉳ 구조식 Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉴ 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머 등 총 7가지의 알릴에스테르 올리고머를 모두 포함하는 것으로 해석된다고 할 것이다.

However, the detailed description of the invention prior to the correction states that "(a) it has the structure of the 3rd Esiversary Esiversary Esiversary Esiversary Esiversary Esiversary Esiversary Esiversary Esivesivesivesivesivesivesives; (b) Esivesivesivesivesivesivesives/hesivesivesivesivesivesivesivesivesivesivesives; (c) Esivesivesivesives/hesivesivesives/hesivesivesivesives/hesivesivesives of Esives; and (d) Esivesives/hesivesives/hesivesives/hes of Esivesives’ structurals structuralsivesives-outsives-outsives-outsives-outsives."

나머지 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머(㉱), 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉲), 구조식 Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머(㉳), 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉴) 등 4가지 유형의 올리고머에 관하여는 정정 전의 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서에 그 화학구조식 및 제조 실시예가 전혀 개시되어 있지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머(㉱)의 경우, 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조한 후 이를 구조식 Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머와 말단을 결합시켜 제조하는지(이 경우는 블록공중합체가 될 것이다) 또는 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하기 위해 필요한 모노머인 '2가 알릴에스테르 모노머 및 2가 알코올'을, 구조식 Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하기 위해 필요한 모노머인 '2가 알릴에스테르 모노머 및 3가 이상의 알코올'과 함께 반응시켜 제조하는지(이 경우는 통상의 공중합체가 될 것이다) 그 제조방법 및 제조된 올리고머의 구조가 불분명하고, 단지 2가 알릴에스테르 모노머를 2가 알코올과 반응시켜 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하는 명세서 기재로부터 위 구조를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하는 실시형태가 당연히 유추될 수 있을 정도로 자명하다고 볼 수도 없으며, 이러한 점은 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉲), 구조식 Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉳), 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉴)의 경우에도 마찬가지라 할 것이다.

따라서 정정사항 ①에 의하여 정정 후의 이 사건 제1항 발명의 (a)성분에 새로 포함된 ㉱ 내지 ㉴ 등 4가지 유형의 알릴에스테르 올리고머는 비록 정정 전의 (a)성분인 알릴에스테르 올리고머에 포함되는 하위개념이라 하더라도 그것이 정정 전의 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서에 전혀 개시되어 있지 않던 것이고 또 명세서상 자명하다고 볼 수도 없으므로, 결국 정정사항 ①은 정전 전의 상위개념 중 최초 명세서에 의해 뒷받침되지 않는 부분을 정정에 의해 새로 추가하는 것으로서 이 사건 제1항 발명의 특허청구범위를 실질적으로 확장하거나 변경하는 경우에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

(3) Whether a patent can be granted at the time of the filing of the patent application on the matters described in the corrected patent application

Article 136(3) of the former Patent Act provides that in the case of a correction to reduce the scope of claims, the matters described in the claims after the correction shall be patentable at the time of patent application. As seen earlier, since the correction falls under the reduction of the scope of claims after the correction, it shall be examined whether the matters described in the scope of claims after the correction can be patented at the time of patent application.

First, with respect to the lack of description in the specification of the patent invention of this case after correction, the provisions of Article 42 (3) and (4) of the former Patent Act are to clarify the technical content and scope to be protected as a patent right by disclosing the contents of the patent application to a third party easily known by the specification only. Thus, "the detailed description of the invention" in paragraph (3) of the above Article shall be stated to the extent that a person with ordinary technological understanding in the art to which the patent application pertains can understand the invention without adding special knowledge by considering it as the technical standard at the time of patent application according to the description in the art to which the patent application pertains, and at the same time, it shall be stated to the extent that the invention can be reproduced. In order for the claim to be supported by the detailed description as provided in paragraph (4) 1 of the above Article, from the perspective of an average technician, the contents of the patent application and the invention are consistent with the detailed description of the patent application and the invention so that it can be understood that the technical composition, combination, and effects of the invention can be justified (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu29.

앞에서 본 바와 같이, 정정 후의 이 사건 제1항 발명의 (a)성분은 그 문언상으로 볼 때, ㉮ 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉯ 구조식 Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉰ 구조식 Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉱ 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉲ 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머, ㉳ 구조식 Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머, ㉴ 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머 등 총 7가지의 알릴에스테르 올리고머를 모두 포함하는 것으로 해석된다고 할 것인데, 정정 후의 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서 중 참고예에는 디알릴테레프탈레이트(DAT), 디알릴이소프탈레이트와 같은 2가 알릴에스테르 모노머를 프로필렌글리콜, 1, 3-부탄디올 등의 2가 알코올과 반응시켜 제조되는 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머(㉮) 중 일부의 제조 실시예가 개시되어 있을 뿐(5쪽 21행~6쪽 21행), 나머지 ㉯ 내지 ㉴의 올리고머에 관하여는 구체적인 제조 실시예가 명세서에 전혀 기재되어 있지 않다.

Among them, in light of the informational reference, structural structure type II, III's chemical structure formula, and the ventilation of the specifications that cause the occurrence of a disaster, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

그러나 나머지 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머(㉱), 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉲), 구조식 Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머(㉳), 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉴) 등 4가지 유형의 올리고머에 관하여는 앞에서 본 바와 같이 정정 후의 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서에 그 화학구조식 및 제조 실시예가 전혀 개시되어 있지 않고, 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 알릴에스테르 올리고머(㉱)의 경우, 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조한 후 이를 구조식 Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머와 말단을 결합시켜 제조하는지(이 경우는 블록공중합체가 될 것이다) 또는 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하기 위해 필요한 모노머인 '2가 알릴에스테르 모노머 및 2가 알코올'을 구조식 Ⅱ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하기 위해 필요한 모노머인 '2가 알릴에스테르 모노머 및 3가 이상의 알코올'과 함께 반응시켜 제조하는지(이 경우는 통상의 공중합체가 될 것이다) 그 제조방법 및 제조된 올리고머의 구조가 불분명하고, 위 각 제조방법은 작용기의 수 등 출발물질의 특성이 다를 뿐만 아니라, 제조된 올리고머의 구조도 모노머 단위가 교대로 반복되는 교호공중합체인지 올리고머가 블록형태로 연결된 블록공중합체인지도 차이가 있으며, 단지 2가 알릴에스테르 모노머를 2가 알코올과 반응시켜 구조식 Ⅰ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하는 명세서의 기재로부터 위 구조를 갖는 올리고머를 제조하는 실시형태가 당연히 유추될 수 있을 정도로 그 기재가 자명하다고 볼 수도 없고, 그 밖에 달리 위와 같은 형태의 올리고머가 이 사건 특허발명의 출원 전에 그 기술분야에서 널리 알려진 범용적인 재료라든가 또는 그 제조가 용이하다는 점 등을 인정할 만한 증거도 없으며, 이러한 점은 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉲), 구조식 Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉳), 구조식 Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ의 반복단위를 갖는 올리고머(㉴)의 경우에도 마찬가지라 할 것이다.

따라서 특정한 형태(㉱ 내지 ㉴)의 올리고머가 포함된 조성물을 청구하고 있는 이 사건 특허발명의 명세서 중 발명의 상세한 설명에는 당해 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 특수한 지식을 부가하지 않고서도 정정 후의 이 사건 제1항 발명 및 이를 인용하고 있는 종속항인 이 사건 제7~9, 11~14항 발명을 이해하고 과도한 시행착오 없이 그 발명을 재현할 수 있을 정도로 위 특정한 형태의 올리고머의 출발물질, 반응조건 및 제조공정 등 그 제조방법을 구체적으로 기재하여야 할 것임에도 불구하고, 이 사건 특허발명의 발명의 상세한 설명에는 위 특정한 형태의 올리고머의 제조방법 내지 제조 실시예에 관하여 아무런 기재가 없으므로, 위 발명의 상세한 설명은 이 사건 특허발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 그 기재만으로 이를 용이하게 실시할 수 있을 정도로 발명의 목적·구성 및 효과를 기재하지 않았다고 보아야 할 것이고, 또한 정정 후의 이 사건 제1항 발명 및 이를 인용하고 있는 종속항인 이 사건 제7~9, 11~14항 발명의 특허청구범위는 그 조성물의 하나인 (a)성분 중 특정한 형태(㉱ 내지 ㉴)의 알릴에스테르 올리고머에 관하여 명세서의 발명의 상세한 설명에 의하여 뒷받침되지 않는 것으로서 그 특허청구범위의 기재가 불비하다고 할 것이다.

Accordingly, as long as the detailed description of the invention and the description of the claim in the specification violate Article 42(3) and (4) of the former Patent Act, the patented invention in this case after the correction shall be deemed to be non-patentable at the time of the patent application without further examination as to whether it is impossible to practice the patented invention, the existence of the remainder of the non-entry, and the existence of newness or inventive step.

(4) Ultimately, the correction of the specification of the patented invention of this case constitutes a case where the scope of claims under Article 42 (1) 1 of the former Patent Act is reduced. However, in substance, the patented invention of this case after the correction is extended or modified, and it constitutes a case where the patented invention of this case is not patentable at the time of patent application due to the detailed description of the specification and the lack of description in the scope of claims. Thus, the correction is against Article 136 (2) and (3) of the former Patent Act and it is not permissible. Accordingly, the trial decision of this case, which has different conclusions, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of this case is unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition to revoke it.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)