The case holding that the manufacturing method using promotions does not be included within the scope of the patent right without reference to the use of promotions, because the technical matters significantly differ.

As the use of promotions in the process of manufacturing chemicals differs significantly from the technical idea, the method of manufacturing using the promotions and the method of manufacturing using the promotions without any reference to the promotions and the method of manufacturing using the promotions may be different from each other, except where it is recognized that the latter's use of the promotions is not aimed at gaining the friendship in the effect of the operation, but only adding a valuable process, even if it is the same as the starting material and the producing material. Therefore, the latter method is outside the scope of the right of the electronic patent.

Articles 8 and 97 of the Patent Act

Attorney Kim Jae-sop, Lee Jae-sop and Dong Patent Attorney Kim Jae-sop et al., Counsel for promotion precise industry

[Defendant-Appellant] Shepherbrier Cambodia (Attorney Yellow-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 1982Da186 dated September 30, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Intellectual Property Office Judgment") No. 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The grounds of appeal by the appellant are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the records, it is recognized by the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office that the case was pending in the court below on Sep. 29, 1983 that notified the party to the appeal of the change to Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 to Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 4. However, the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the party members of the purport that the above change was caused by mistake and does not fit the truth. Thus, regardless of the above change notice, the appeal of the case duly designated by the former three persons should have been filed, regardless of the above change notice, and therefore, it is groundless to discuss the illegality of the composition of the trial panel of the court below on the premise that there was a change in composition.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below judged that the above method of 9% of the patented invention of this case concerning the method of chemical production of N-Amphalian N-dimethyl (or 0-M-S-methyl)-N-N-N-N-Hital ethyl et al. is the same as its starting material and reaction material, but (1) the above method of 9% of the patented invention of this case can be excluded from its technological reaction with 9% of the patented invention of this case where the above method of 9% of the patented invention of this case could not be seen as being identical to those of the patented invention of this case where the above method of 9% of the patented invention of this case could not be seen as having been identical to those of the patented invention of this case where the above method of 9% of the patented invention of this case could not be seen as having been identical to those of the above 9% of the patented invention of this case.

In the process of manufacturing a chemical substance, the use of a promotional product differs significantly from the professional engineer. Thus, even if the use of a promotional product is not mentioned in the scope of the patent claim or detailed explanation, the method of manufacturing using the promotional product may not be deemed to have been premised on the use of the promotional product, unless it is deemed that the latter's use of the promotional product is not to obtain a friendly and non-valueless process in the effect, but to add a fair and non-value. Therefore, the latter method cannot be deemed to be outside the scope of the right of the electronic patent, and the latter method cannot be deemed to be outside the scope of the right of the electronic patent, and even if the use of the family promotional product was already known at the time of the patent application, it can be easily predicted if it was not mentioned in the use of the promotional product in the scope or detailed explanation of the patent claim, so long as the patent cannot be deemed to have been made under the premise of the use of the promotional product, the opinion of the court below is justified, and there is no merit in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju