|Subject｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo1304, decided August 25, 2017|
Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo1304, decided August 25, 2017 (Detonation Device Case)
Case on whether the determination of solution principles for the corresponding invention in a situation where the characteristic element that grants inventiveness for the corresponding claim was disclosed very specifically compared to other elements should be based on the corresponding element.
It may be regarded that the principle of solution based on specific means to solve problem of claims 1 and 3 in this case lies in ‘easily and sturdily connecting the shock tube and spark detonator through the connecting part’. However, the connecting part of the challenged invention as well features a structure for easily and sturdily connecting shock tube with spark detonator and this is shared in common with the connecting part of claims 1 and 3 in this case. As shown above, the circuit which was practically equivalent to the circuits of claims 1 and 3 in this case was disclosed in Prior art 1 and the defendant has included the elements of the connecting part disclosed in claim 5 incorporated in claim 1 to overcome the grounds for rejection of acknowledgement of inventiveness and it can be seen that the composition of this connecting part was very strict as disclosed above. However, if the specific means to solve problem of claims 1 and 3 in this case determines the solution principle as just ‘connecting structure to easily and sturdily connect spark detonator with shock tube’ regardless of the specifically limited connecting part as shown above, the scope of equivalence despite the amendment of strictly limiting the scope of claim as shown above would result in being a wider scope despite the amendment and reduction of claim which would be unreasonable.
|Previous｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo2277, ...|
|Next｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo7947, ...|