|Subject｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo776, decided July 14, 2017|
Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo776, decided July 14, 2017 (Extended Head Pile Case)
The recognition of intentional exclusion of some element from the scope of claim during the patent application process must be determined by taking not only just the specification of the invention into consideration but also the opinion suggested by the patent examiner from application until patenting as well as the intent of patent applicant and grounds for amendment in amendment and opinion documents. Therefore, rather than comparing the composition before and after reduction because the scope of claim was reduced during the patent application process and concluding that all composition existing between the two scenarios were intentionally excluded from the scope of claim and combining various circumstances revealed throughout the application process, such exclusion can only be recognized when the intent of exclusion from the scope of claim for some element is clearly exhibited by the applicant. And such legal principle applies the same for when there is an opinion testimony through submission of opinion document and such without any reduction in scope of claim (Refer to Supreme Court Decision, 2014Hu638, decided April 26, 2017).
But the patent application for ‘composition of head elements 1 and 2 being extended equally left and right’ among element 2 of the subject invention in this case was disclosed for the scope of claim but later deleted intentionally by the applicant which should be recognized as intentional exclusion from the scope of claim. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ‘extension line featuring length of protrusion on exterior and exterior of main body at 25mm’ of the invention in question with such intentional exclusion of element is equivalent to element 2.
|Previous｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo7947, ...|
|Next｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo8636, ...|