등록상표의 不正使用 및 不使用에 의한 商標登錄 取消審判制度에 관한 硏究

안재현 忠南大學校 大學院 2016 국내박사

The purpose of this study is to analyze problems and issues regarding the Korean trial system for the revocation (cancellation) of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner, or non-use of a registered trademark, and to propose legislative alternatives to certain problems, as well as to offer a new construction on certain issues. Regarding a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration due to unjust use by the trademark right owner in accordance with Article 73(1)2 of the Korean Trademark Act, first, it is proposed to clearly provide for, in the Trademark Act, the concept of ‘a comparable trademark’ and its requirements; for, despite no specific wording for it in the Act, the courts have acknowledged its presence and its necessity when correctly applying the Article, and it should be provided for, even if only on the basis of pure logic. Second, it is proposed that, in addition to the consumer, ‘the general public’ be included among those who can be misled or confused as to the source of goods or services, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged the possibility of ‘post-sale confusion’ on the part of the public. Alternatively it is proposed to delete ‘the consumer’ in order to expand ‘the misled subjective’ to ‘the public’ or ‘the third party.’ Third, the expression ‘confusion with goods relating to another person’s business’ is vague and elusive, and I propose it be changed to ‘confusion with the goods of another person.’ Fourth, Article 91bis(2), which is closely related to Article 73(1)2, must be amended due to both a semantic or phraseological error as well as a lapse in logic. The wording ‘as similar to the registered trademark’ must be deleted. In addition, a provisory clause needs to be added to the Article, saying “Provided, that the foregoing shall not apply where a change of color of the registered trademark leads to any misconception about the quality of goods or any confusion with another person’s trademark recognized as a particular person’s.” In regard to a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration for non-use under Article 73(1)3, first, it is proposed to provide that a non-exclusive licensee could sub-license his/her license to another person with permission from the trademark right owner (and the exclusive licensee, if any). Second, it is beyond all reason and understanding that the Supreme Court acknowledged as ‘the use of a trademark by its right holder’ the importing, selling and displaying of the designated goods of a registered trademark by a parallel importer who is not under the control of, or has no relation to, the trademark right owner. This decision is not in accordance with not only paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement and foreign case law but also another judgment made by the same Supreme Court in which the Court did not acknowledge the selling of designated goods by a domestic seller who is not under the control of the trademark right owner as a justifiable use of the registered trademark for the purpose of exemption of revocation of a trademark registration under Article 73(1)3. Third, it is proposed to demolish the unnecessary interests requirement, provided for in Article 73(6), for a claimant to prove his/her interests for the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration in accordance with Article 73(1)3. Fourth, it is recommended to make a provision in the Act not to acknowledge as “a justifiable use” cases in which the registered trademark is used within three months before the date of lodging the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration, for it is “a nominal use” intended to avoid revocation due to non-use. Fifth, it is proposed to acknowledge the retroactive effect of the revocation of a registered trademark to the date of the registration of the trial request, for it may be possible for the trademark right owner to lodge an infringement lawsuit or license the trademark not in use to a third party during the period of the trial for the revocation of a trademark registration. Sixth, it is required to prohibit the trademark right owner from registering a new trademark identical with or similar to the abandoned trademark where the trademark right owner abandons his/her trademark right within three months before the filing date of the request for a trial for the revocation of a trademark registration. Seventh, It is desirable to expand the acknowledgeable scope of identity of a registered trademark to include combination of not only English but also other foreign letters that are familiar to Koreans and their Korean transliteration as reflecting the trader’s actual custom and practice of using registered trademarks. Eighth, it is recommended to establish clear standards and criteria for scope of identity of a trademark in relation to Article 73(1)3 in view of case law, academic theories, and foreign legislation, because, without such standards and criteria, even court decisions have had no coherence or consistency on scope of identity of a trademark under Article 73(1)3. Ninth, as Article 73(1)3 and Article 73(4) mostly overlap each other, it is recommended to combine the two paragraphs into one that is systematic.

특허침해금지청구권에 관한 연구

한혜경 忠南大學校 特許法務大學院 2016 국내석사

Right to injunction for patent infringement is the main remedy on present and future. And it is compared with right for damages on the past. Right to injunction has different legal characteristics between civil law system and common law system. Korea’s legal characteristic follows civil law system. Right to injunction for patent infringement corresponds to ‘real action’ of civil law in civil law system. On the other hand, US’s injunction corresponds to ‘injunction’ of equity law in common law system. This paper described a principle of law on right to injunction of Korea, U.S., Japan, Germany and China. And I compared each basis and conditions on the right to injunction, discretion of courts, and restriction of injunction. According to comparison with each country, it can show that each country acknowledges the injunction as patent infringement relief. In eBay decision in the U.S., the Supreme Court announced that a permanent injunction is not to be automatically awarded in every case in which a patent is found infringed and its validity sustained. After the eBay case, almost all courts consider equitable requirement(4-factor test) and show their discretion. Many countries continue to discuss for improvement of injunction relief and suggest legislation. Therefore, we need to examine about essence of right to injunction in order to consider about appropriateness of current injunction relief and necessity for improvement. The current injunction relief for patent infringement in Korea has fundamental problem such as a problem of NPE’s exercise for injunction and a problem of patent hold-up of standard technology. To reach the adequate remedy, current system should be improved through revision of the Patent Act and establishment of specific requirements for injunction.

국가 R&D사업의 국제공동연구관련 지적재산권에 관한 법적 고찰

김용주 충남대학교 특허법무대학원 2016 국내석사

In recent, international joint research in R&D projects becomes active in Korea. The reason why the collaboration become vigorous is because technology develop rapidly compared to the past. In addition, there are lots of market needs to open up new markets through technological convergence more than ever. People recognize that it is necessary to develop existing skills through well-rounded skills and interaction, rather than carving out a market with the existing technologies. It is necessary to participate more actively in the international collaboration to preempt more opportunities. To do this, Korea should check the existing legal and institutional issues and identify appropriate improvement measures. The current study examines the legal framework that underlies the domestic and international collaboration. The study checks the problems that can occur on the current system. It is necessary to describe the legal part which will be complemented in the future.

고품질 특허창출을 위한 제도적 개선방안 연구

양찬호 충남대학교 특허법무대학원 2016 국내석사

The study schemes to induce a high-quality patent application in the previous patent creation step, to improve the quality of examine in the examination step, to be managed patent quality after registration. With regard to quality of patents, it is to investigate the prior art is very important for the applicant as well as the examiner. The invention fully investigate the prior art to be filed before the application can be found by looking to determine whether a patent can be with novelty or inventive step. Investigating the prior art improves the quality of the patent by creating or improving a prior art patent, bypassing patent. The irradiation in a prior art examination step is a process that requires a lot of time and effort. Influence on the quality of examination according to the degree of tilt of search effort in the art may be proportional. Therefore, for the quality of the patent creation, applicant as well as examiner prior art search also is an important requirement. Institutional measures that the applicant could lead to search for prior art before the application is a way to describe the way that the prior art to separate formatting to the prior art described in the background art. In order to assess the quality of the prior art to be provided with information related to a combination of keywords and sources of the prior art. Next, a scheme to obtain the assistance of experts from the prior art document examination stage. To open the examination stage is to improve the outside so that you can communicate with the outside of the closed examining practices. Professionals engaged in production are familiar with the technical trends in the art. When offered the preceding article, with the help of experts, examination quality would be improved. Finally, a way to enhance the quality of the patent registration after the determination. After registration for the registration decision before pre-grant amendment, it is necessary to RCE(Request for Continued Examination) of the United States. After registration decisions before registration to be amended by the applicant sees a institution to relieve the defect. After the registration of the judgment correction system, or the applicant may wish to review the system can be corrected, such as the United States supplemental examination or re-examination system institutions. However, the improved system is needed to reduce the burden to the applicant and can be processed quickly. The need to review the appeals system as a system that allows third party to point out the flaws of registered patents after registration. To be of high quality patents create prior art investigation by the applicant derived to be settled from the application stage, improve the quality of the audit with the help of experts, the registration decision, yet, even after processing procedures quickly, to the right or the claimant 's burden to mitigate I think the institutional plan to be presented to make it possible to eliminate the defect.

제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항(Product by Process Claim)에 관한 연구

정에스더 충남대학교 특허법무대학원 2016 국내석사

This paper studies clarity requirement and interpretation of Product by Process Claims. Investigation on the examination practice and patent prosecution/infringement cases of IP5 countries (Republic of Korea, Japan, United Stated, Europe and China) are conducted. Also, desirable interpretation of Product by Process Claims is suggested by comparison among the examination practice and patent prosecution/infringement cases of IP5 countries. Product by Process Claims are for inventions of products reciting manufacturing process of the products. It is generally more difficult to understand and interpret Product by Process Claims than the claims which products are defined by their structure and characteristics. Product by Process Claims can be classified into 'Authentic PBP Claims' and 'Inauthentic PBP Claims'. ‘Authentic PBP Claims’are directed to those impossible to define products by their structure or characteristics and can only be defined by their manufacturing process. On the other hand, 'Inauthentic PBP Claims' can be defined by other features other than manufacturing process of the products. 'Inauthentic PBP Claims' can be interpreted clearly as features of product can be determined when considering content of the description. However, 'Authentic PBP Claims' hard to meet the clarity requirement of Patent Law, and it is necessary to allow an exception on clarity requirement and allow 'Authentic PBP Claims', as there are circumstances that products can only be defined by their process, especially in Chemistry and Life Science field. Irrespective of whether 'Authentic PBP Claims' or 'Inauthentic PBP Claims', they are directed to the product per se and confers absolute protection upon the products. However, when interpreting 'Authentic PBP Claims' it is impossible to compare the claimed products with prior art or accused product directly due to absence of information on structural features of claimed products. Therefore there seem to be no other option but to limit the products to particular process as defined in the claims until the structure of characteristics of the products are determined.

수치한정 및 파라미터 발명의 명세서 기재요건에 관한 연구

위연화 충남대학교 특허법무대학원 2016 국내석사

In this thesis, it is studied on description requirements of the numerical limitation and parameter invention through patent examination guidelines and patent cases, comparing with corresponding regulations of major foreign countries such as Japan, U. S. A., Europe, China related in numerical limitation invention and parameter invention. Disclosure requirements of patent specification play a role of disclosing what the established invention is and what is sought for protection. They can separate out enablement requirement, claims support requirement, claim clarity(definiteness) requirement. First, enablement requirement means that a clear and recise description of the invention should lead a person skilled in the art to easily work the invention based on the technical knowledge, specification and drawings at the time of filing the application. Secondly, claims support requirement means that the requirement that the Claim should be supported with the detailed description of the invention. Lastly, claim clarity(definiteness) requirement means that the requirement that the claim should define the invention clearly and concisely. According to the Korean Intellectual Property Office's examination guidelines, a ‘numerical limitation invention' is defined as 'an invention in which some parts of indispensible elements of the invention described in the claims are expressed by specific numerical values'. Also, ‘parameter invention' refers to an serving as a part of the component serving as a part of the component of the invention after an applicant arbitrarily creates a parameter for physical-chemical characteristic values which is not the standard in the concerned technical field or an unacceptable parameter or creates a parameter based on the arithmetic expression by using the correlation between the multiple variables.” Until now, numerical limitation and parameter invention have mainly issued by novelty or inventive step, it was rare cases that issued by disclosure requirements of patent specification. Numerical limitation and parameter invention have a scope of the powerful right if it is granted. But it is difficult with finding prior arts related in lack of novelty or inventive step. So numerical limitation invention and parameter invention are especially important to consider the disclosure requirements in patent specification. However, Criterion on the disclosure requirements of these inventions is not clear and same among the 5 countries. In conclusion, concerning disclosure requirement of the numerical limitation and parameter invention, patent examination guidelines shall be revised more clearly and in detail. Also, a variety of patent cases of the major countries shall be studied case by case under consideration of the characteristics of the numerical limitation and parameter invention. Keyword : Disclosure requirement, Specification, Numerical Limitation Invention, Parameter Invention, Enablement requirement, written description, Claim Support requirement, Claim Clarity(Definiteness) requirement

무효심결 예고제도 도입방안 연구

유철종 충남대학교 특허법무대학원 2016 국내석사

Now Korean patent trial(invalidation trial, correction(post-amendment) trial) and litigation system is too complicated. If all patent invalidation attack and defense in patent invalidation trial procedure is possible, patentee will not need a trial for correction(post-amendment) under the cancellation litigation of patent invalidation trial decision. But patentee needs the trial for correction(post-amendment) as an invalidation defense means. Because an invalidation trial claimant submits the new evidence, which is not submitted to the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, to the Patent Court under the cancellation litigation of patent invalidation trial decision. In March 2015, Korean Intellectual Property Office preannounced a revised bill in order to amend the patent act with regard to the patent invalidation trial and correction(post-amendment) trial. The revised bill of patent act includes introducing an invalidation trial decision notice and patent opposition. Japan patent office already revised the patent act to introduce invalidation trial decision notice in 2011. I review a pre-announcement of legislation of the patent act and analyze the problem of the invalidation trial decision notice drafting and discover the idea of patent opposition drafting. So I suggest a modified invalidation trial decision notice. Concretely, where a board of three or five administrative patent judges intends to render a decision to invalidate the patent right, they shall notify the patentee of the grounds therefor and provide the patentee an opportunity to present his/her written opinions and corrections to the specification or drawings of a patented invention within a fixed period. If so, it will be effective to introduce the indirect hearing range limit of the litigation. I also suggest revising to reduce the correction chance of patent during invalidation trial of patent. And I suggest that the patentee can’t request the trial for correction before the patent invalidation decision has become final and binding. If so, patent trial(invalidation, correction(post-amendment)) and litigation system will be simplified.

관류자기공명영상을 이용한 모야모야병의 뇌혈역학 평가와 병기 결정 : 혈관조영술과의 비교연구

정현경 연세대학교 대학원 2006 국내석사

Moyamoya disease is a chronic progressive cerebrovascular disease of unknown etiology and characterized by stenoocclusive changes of supraclinoid internal carotid arteries with prominent collateral vessel formation. The clinical presentation of moyamoya disease depends on the degree of stenoocclusive changes of intracranial artery including supraclinoid internal carotid artery and collateral vessel formation affecting cerebral perfusion. The evaluation of hemodynamics in moyamoya disease is important and perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging has been used effectively in assessing hemodynamics in addition to single photon emission tomography (SPECT), the gold standard of imaging in moyamoya disease.The purpose of this study was to evaluate hemodynamics in moyamoya disease using perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging and to compare it with conventional angiography and assess the utility of perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating the degree of stenoocclusive change of intracranial artery and collateral vessel formation.24 patients with moyamoya disease diagnosed with conventional angiography (10 males, 14 females; mean 8.1 years; aging range from 2 to 21 years) were included in this study and was reviewed by two radiologists retrospectively.The angiographic findings were graded according to the stenoocclusive change of intracranial artery including supraclinoid internal carotid artery and the degree of collateral vessel formation, using previously proposed angiographic staging system. In perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging, areas in the hemispheres were divided into eight regions and the time to peak (TTP) and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) were evaluated according to the divided areas.The degree of stenoocclusive changes of PCA significantly correlated with the time to peak (TTP) according to the divided areas in the hemisphere (p = 0.0027) and in this area increased relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was observed, thus we predicted the possibility of prominent collateral vessel formation in this area. Also the degree of stenoocclusive changes of PCA significantly correlated with the transdural collateral formation (p = 0.0117) and the increased relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was due to the transdural collateral formation.In conclusion, we can predict the degree of stenoocclusive changes of PCA and the transdural collateral formation in patients with moyamoya disease using perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. 모야모야병은 원인 불명의 만성적으로 진행하는 뇌혈관 협착을 야기하는 질환으로 내경동맥 상상돌기 상부의 협착 및 폐쇄와 다양한 측부 혈관의 발달을 특징으로 한다. 내경동맥을 포함한 뇌혈관의 협착 및 폐쇄에 따라 다양한 임상 양상을 보이며 여기에는 측부 혈관 발달 정도가 뇌 관류에 중요한 영향을 미치는 요소로 작용한다. 따라서 모야모야병의 혈역학적 상태를 이해하는 것이 중요하며, 이를 평가하는 방법으로 표준 검사법인 single photon emission tomography (SPECT) 외 관류자기공명영상이 유용한 것으로 보고되고 있다.본 연구는 관류자기공명영상을 이용해 모야모야병의 혈역학적 상태를 평가하고 이를 뇌혈관조영술과 비교하여 관류자기공명영상만으로 모야모야병의 부분적인 협착 및 폐쇄와 측부 혈관 발달을 가늠할 수 있는지에 대해 알아보고자 한다.뇌혈관조영술에서 모야모야병으로 진단된 24명의 특발성 모야모야병 환자 (남녀 각각 10명, 14명; 평균 나이 8.1세; 연령 분포 2-21세) 를 대상으로 하였으며 두 명의 판독의가 서로 합의하여 후향적으로 영상을 분석하였다.뇌혈관조영술에서 상상돌기 상부 내경동맥을 포함한 대뇌동맥의 협착 및 폐쇄 정도를 Suzuki grade에 따라 평가하고 이와 함께 기저 모야모야혈관을 포함한 측부 혈관 발달 정도를 살펴보았다. 관류자기공명영상에서는 관류 및 상대적 뇌 혈류량 상태와 정도를 영역별로 나누어 살펴보았다.그 결과 후대뇌동맥의 협착 및 폐쇄 정도와 영역별 관류 지연 정도간에 유의한 상관관계가 관찰되었고 (р = 0.0027) 또한 이들 영역에서 상대적 뇌 혈류량 증가 소견이 관찰되어 측부 혈관이 발달되어 있음을 예측할 수 있었으며 실제 후대뇌동맥의 협착 및 폐쇄 정도와 경막 측부 혈관 발달 간에 유의한 상관관계가 있는 것으로 결과가 나와 (р = 0.0117) 상대적 뇌 혈류량 증가는 바로 발달된 경막 측부 혈관 때문인 것으로 분석되었다.결론적으로 모야모야병에서 관류자기공명영상으로 후방 순환의 폐쇄 및 협착 정도와 경막 측부 혈관 발달의 예측이 가능함을 알 수 있었다.

18세기 秦漢古文論의 전개와 실현 양상

하지영 이화여자대학교 대학원 2014 국내박사

본 연구는 18세기 秦漢古文論의 전개 양상을 검토하고, 실제 산문에서 어떻게 실현되는지를 분석하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 선초부터 宋風에 대한 반성이 고조된 가운데 宣祖 연간에 유입된 明代 前後七子의 문학이 자극이 되어, 진한고문을 전범으로 삼아 산문 창작에 반영하자는 논의가 활성화되기 시작하였다. 이후 진한고문론은 조선 문단에서 당송고문론과 함께 문학론의 큰 줄기를 형성하며 18세기 이후까지 전승되었다. 18세기에 박학적 학풍이 유행하면서 진한고문과 전후칠자 산문에 대한 선집 작업과 유통이 활발하게 이루어졌다. 아울러 ‘古’에 가치를 두고 이에 회귀할 것을 소망하는 상고적 세계관이 범당파적인 공감을 얻었으며, 중화계승론이 대두되는 것과 맞물려 전후칠자에 대한 호감이 고조되거나 재인식하려는 경향이 나타났다. 이상은 18세기 이후 진한고문론이 지속적으로 전개될 수 있었던 배경으로 작용한다. 18세기에 唐宋에 앞서 진한고문에 대한 독서를 강조하며 그 안에 내재된 미감을 획득하자는 논의가 확산되었다. 근기 남인은 전대의 독서관을 계승하였으며, 영남, 낙론계 문인들은 그들의 전통적 독서관에서 벗어나는 양상을 보인다. 진한고문은 기존의 성리학적 載道論의 구도에서는 포괄될 수 없는 텍스트로, 이를 전범으로 삼기 위해서는 文과 道에 대한 재정의가 선행되어야 했다. 진한고문 계열의 문인들은 道의 의미를 보다 폭넓게 이해하거나 양자를 분리함으로써 文의 가치를 상대적으로 높이려는 경향을 보인다. 또 송풍이 만연한 문단에 대해서 비판적 인식을 드러내고, 문장의 목표를 높게 잡음으로써 ‘지금’의 ‘조선’이라는 시대와 지역적 한계를 극복하여 최고의 문학적 경지에 도달할 것을 촉구하였다. 이들은 고문 학습의 중요성을 강조하였지만 天機, 自得, 나아가 創新과 모순된 것으로 인식하지 않아 ‘擬古’적 문학론을 극복하고 있다. 이상의 문학론이 어떻게 실현되는지를 살펴보기에 앞서, 진한고문적 글쓰기의 실체를 규명해 보았다. 우선 문장 전범으로 거론되는 선진양한 산문은 당송고문에 비하여 자구와 편장의 운용에서 簡과 煩, 규칙과 그에 대한 위반이 함께 공존하며, 높은 서사성, 형상성이 돋보이며 강한 문세를 지닌다. 이를 계승한 전후칠자의 산문은 전범에 대한 의존도가 강하며 자구 자체를 단련하여 古氣에 가깝게 하는 것을 추구하고, 추상적인 논의보다는 구체적인 묘사에 치중하며 의론성보다는 서사성이 강하다. 또 일정한 규칙 하에 자구와 편장을 구성하기보다는 나열․강조하는 방식을 선호하고 즉발적인 경향이 특징적이다. 선조․광해 연간 이후 국내에서도 진한고문의 미감을 재현하려는 산문이 활발히 창작되었는데, 전후칠자와 달리 송대 문학 특유의 유기성을 함께 추구하여 진한과 당송을 절충하려는 경향이 보인다. 17세기 후반에는 전범의 범위가 확장되고 그에 대한 의존도가 강해짐에 따라, 난삽하게 글을 쓰거나 표절의 비중이 높아지는 등 진한고문론의 한계를 노정하였다. 18세기의 李用休, 申維翰, 兪漢雋은, 이전 시기의 한계를 극복하여 진한고문의 문체를 내재화하면서도 독자적인 미감과 의미를 산출하며, 나아가 문체뿐 아니라 진한고문의 정신에 깊이 공감하고 계승하려는 시도를 보였다. 신유한의 산문은 전범에 대한 의존도가 높고 불규칙한 자구 운용으로 기굴한 인상을 준다. 또 문장의 본령을 史體로 규정하여 사건․인물․풍경 등을 묘사할 때 진부한 표현을 자제하고 생동감 있게 묘사하였다. 이러한 표현 방식은 의론문에서도 적용되어 논리적인 단계를 거쳐 자신의 주장을 입증하는 것 보다는 비유와 나열을 통해 강조하거나, 장면을 통해 구체화하는 방식을 선호하였다. 이용휴는 젊은 시절 진한고문의 자구운용과 당송고문 특유의 체계적인 편장법을 반영한 작품을 많이 창작하였다. 만년 산문은 소품적 경향이 강해지는 가운데 敎示적인 성향이 돋보인다. 복잡한 의론과 논증의 과정을 거쳐서 진행하는 것보다는, 간단명료한 말을 던지거나 반복되는 문답을 통해 교훈을 드러내는 방식을 선호하였는데, 이때 先秦 산문의 글쓰기와 사유를 계승하는 산문을 확인할 수 있었다. 유한준은 송대 산문 특유의 논리성과 유기성을 추구하면서도 진한고문의 성과를 수용하려는 시도를 보였다. 의고를 통해 진한고문의 자구 운용․체제․표현 기법을 학습, 재현하였으며, 나아가 고문의 모티브를 차용하면서도 자신의 주제와 상황에 부합하도록 적극 변용하여 새로운 의미와 미감을 창출해내는 작업을 시도하였다. 또 老莊의 사유까지 폭넓게 수용하였으며 司馬遷의 정신을 계승하여 민중의 삶에 내재한 진정성을 주목하고자 하였다. 18세기 진한고문론은 경색된 정주학 담론에 균열을 가하는 역할을 하였으며, 문학의 독자적 가치를 강조하고 문예의 수준을 고양시키려는 ‘작가’로서의 주체적 의지를 반영하고 있다. 또 평탄한 문체와 의론을 중시하는 문풍을 극복하고 기굴하면서도 서사성이 돋보이는 산문을 창작하여 한문 산문의 범주를 넓혔다는 점, ‘天機’ㆍ‘自得’ㆍ‘創新’의 개념을 강조하여 이전 시기 모방ㆍ표절 차원의 문학론을 극복하려고 하였으며, 실제로도 이에 부응할 만한 문예적 성취를 획득하고 있다는 점에서 의의를 지적할 수 있겠다. 끝으로, 自娛의 문학이 산출되는 시기에도 여전히 문학은 진정성을 담아내야 한다는 당위성을 천명하고 있다는 점을 높게 평가할 수 있다. This thesis aims at examining the development of Qin-Han writings (referred to as Qin-Han gomoon-ron A literary theory (or trend) to pursue styles of composition and literature written in Qin and Han times, specifically from pre-Qin to the East and the West Han. in Korean) in the 18th century and analyzing how such styles were embodied in real prose of Joseon. In the middle of mounting criticism against a writing style of Song Dynasty in the early Joseon times, there was an active discussion on applying Qin-Han writings as a prime example to creating a prose with the influx of Seven Masters Seven Masters were conservative writers and literati, who strongly advocated every writing should follow that of Qin and Han times. They are specifically divided into two groups with a time when they were working. The Earlier Seven Masters (called Jeon-Chilja) worked from 1488 to 1521; The Latter Seven Masters (called Hu-Chilja) did from 1520 to 1569. literature from Ming Dynasty in King Seonjo times. Since then, Qin-Han writings became the mainstream style in Joseon literature along with Tang-Song writings, and continued after the 18th century. Due to a prevalent academic trend to embrace diversity in the 18th century, Qin-Han writings and Seven Maters’ prose were selectively compiled to create anthologies, and they were traded widespread in Joseon. In addition, as the world view to value and return back to the old was widely accepted in many literary schools, there was mounting favor of Seven Masters and a tendency to recognize them with an emerging theory of Joseon’s succession to Confucian culture after Ming Dynasty perished. This supportive background was able to let Qin-Han writings continue after the 18th century. As there was a higher emphasis on reading Qin-Han writings than Tang-Song ones in the 18th-century Joseon, simultaneously the discussion to achieve innate estheticism inside Qin-Han writings arose and was diffused. Namin (one of political parties in Joseon) living nearby the capital city took a previous-times perspective on reading, while Noron literati (a dominant political party) in the capital city and Yongnam area were starting to stray the conventional perspective on reading. Because Qin-Han writings were not possibly included in the context It is referred to as Jaedoe-ron in Korean. of the Neo-Confucianism of which value puts strong emphasis on morality, redefining the meaning of moon (文: writings) and doe (道: morality) had to be preceded to canonize Qin-Han writings. Writers of Qin-Han literary association understood the meaning of doe much broader and separated the notions moon and doe to put relatively higher value on moon than doe. Furthermore, they revealed their critical view points on prevailing writings of Song times and urged to reach an ultimate phase in literature by setting a higher goal in writings in pursuit of overcoming the limit to “the contemporary Joseon” times and regional constraints. While emphasizing the importance of learning the ancient writings, they overcame the previous literary style of simply imitating the ancient writings through accepting the following three elements harmoniously (which used to be considered as contradictory notions before): cheongi (天機: innate talent), jadeuk (自得: self-awareness), and changshin (創新: creation in a new field of literature). Before examining how Qin-Han writings were embodied in Joseon prose, we should understand what Qin-Han writings are first. Compared to Tang-Song writings, Qin-Han prose is intermixed with the observance and violation of the regulation in terms of wording and organizing in composition. It also has prominent narrative and formative properties and strong literary power in style. Seven Masters who inherited these styles counted on the previous prime examples and pursued the closest styles of the ancient writings through the sophisticated wording. It also is likely to focus on detailed descriptions rather than abstract arguments; thus, it contrasts with strong narrativity than argumentative styles. It prefers enumerating and stressing styles to wording and organizing with a consistent regulation, and characterizes spontaneity. After the years of King Seonjo and Kwanghae, there were plenty of attempts in creating prose to reproduce the estheticism of Qin-Han writings in Joseon; however, unlike Seven Masters, in Joseon there was a tendency of compromising writing styles between Qin-Han and Tang-Song ones in pursuit of peculiar cohesion in Song literature. In the late 17th century, as there was a wider range of canons in Qin-Han writings and stronger dependence on them, the limitation to Qin-Han writings was revealed in such forms as disorganized or plagiaristic writings. Lee Yong-hyu, Shin Yu-han, and Yu Han-joon produced their original estheticism and meanings of Qin-Han writings while internalizing its styles into theirs and overcoming the limitation previously shown. Furthermore, they attempted to succeed the profound spirit of Qin-Han writings as well as their styles. Shin Yu-han’s prose shows a high reliance on prime examples and gives a tremendous impression by irregular wording system. As he defined the ordinance of writings as a Chronicle-style, he attempted to vividly describe stories, characters, and background scenery trying to avoid clichés. By applying his style to argumentative writings, he preferred to stress the analogy and enumeration and to describe concrete scenes to prove his stance rather than logical reasoning steps. Lee Yong-hyu created a lot of works applied wording systems of Qin-Han writings and peculiar systematic organization of Tang-Song writings when he was young. Later when he was older, he took shape in a succinct but instructive writing style. Instead of taking complicated argumentative and logical process, he preferred a Socratic method of casting simple but succinct questioning repetitively to indicate lessons. In such style, we can verify that he succeeded Pre-Qin prose writings and spirits in his prose. While Yu Han-joon pursued peculiar logics and cohesion represented in Song prose, he also attempted to embrace the fruits of Qin-Han writings. By following the old writings, he learned and reproduced wording systems and expressional techniques of Qin-Han writings; moreover, he took motives of the ancient writings but drastically modified them to fit his own themes and situations in an attempt to create new meanings and estheticism. As he widely accepted Taoism and succeeded Sima Qian’s spirits, he focused on sincerity internalized in people’s life. Qin-Han writings have five significant meanings in literature: First, Qin-Han writings in the 18th century played a crucial role in challenging over the conventional adamant writings from Cheng-Zhu school, and second, emphasized its own literary values, and reflected writers’ independent will on them to improve literary standard. Third, they overcame a prevailing trend of pursuing prescriptive and argumentative writings at then times and created a new genre of descriptive and narrative prose. Furthermore, they clearly show a pursuit of sincerity in literature, even though it was a time when self-satisfactory literature was still being produced. Lastly, Qin-Han writings stressed the notions of innate talent, self-awareness, and opening a new field of literature, challenging over imitating and plagiaristic literary trend in the previous times; In addition, they are highly evaluated with notable literary achievement corresponding to their attempts.

특허법상 명세서의 기재요건에 관한 연구 : 화학 관련분야의 발명을 중심으로

좌승관 忠南大學校 大學院 2020 국내박사

The most problematic one of description requirements in South Korea is support requirement that the claims must be supported by the description. Whether the claims are supported by the description of the invention shall be determined by a person skilled in the art based on whether the subject matter corresponding to the invention recited in the claims is disclosed in the description of the invention. However, our support requirement is not clear whether it means substantial support requirement or formal support requirement; substantial support requirement demands to demonstrate technical significance through technical problem, its solution, effect thereof and so on in the description, while formal one demands just correspondence between claimed invention and disclosure in the description. On the other hand, US, Japan and EPO have clear stance about support requirement; To satisfy the written description requirement in US, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. To satisfy the support requirement in Japan, the claimed invention should not exceed “the extent of disclosure in the description to which a person skilled in the art would recognize that a problem to be solved by the invention would be actually solved.” To satisfy the support requirement in EPO, the scope of the claims must not be broader than is justified by the extent of the description and drawings and also the contribution to the art. This thesis argues that support requirement should be substantial support requirement because substantial support requirement is fit for its purpose and in harmony with other key countries in its criteria for judgement. And it is reasonable to consider that support requirement is distinct from enablement requirement although both requirements have similar judgement process. As an action plan of above argument, this thesis also suggests that the Supreme Court’ decision should declare that support requirement means substantial support requirement or it should be changed in the manner of substantial support requirement. In the latter case, the support requirement of Japan deserves consideration. And two measures are desirable to avoid confusion caused by similarity of both requirements; One is to combine Patent Act Article 42(3)(1) with 42(4)(1). The other is to apply case of EPO, which says both requirements are applied under the examination stage and only enablement requirement is applied under the next stage. As for enablement requirement, the purpose of enablement requirement written in the court decisions involves the purposes directly irrelevant to its original purpose which is to enable a person skilled in the art to easily practice the invention based on the ordinary skill in the art. So, the purpose of enablement requirement should be changed accordingly with its original purpose, which is accord with those of US, Japan and EPO. With regard to clarity requirement, it seems that there are little problems about the purpose and the criteria of clarity requirement, but some expressions in claims cause confusion which does not fulfill clarity requirement. For example, in general, expressions such as "about", "for example" are considered to make claimed inventions unclear according to the examination guideline. However, the expressions do not make claimed inventions unclear in many cases. So, our examination guideline needs modifying with more specific explanation in depth about various cases like those of USPTO and EPO. Special type inventions involve selection invention, medical use claim, numerical limitation claim, PBP claim(Product By Process claim) and functional claim. It seems that the description requirements are often considered to apply to those inventions differently with inventions with general claims. However, the description requirements apply to those inventions and the inventions with general claims in the same way. There are some characteristic cases to think in the special type inventions when the description requirements apply. As well as enablement requirement, support requirement should apply in the medical use claims when pharmaceutical efficacy is not properly shown in the description under the terms of substantial support requirement. PBP claims should be considered to violate clarity requirement because PBP claims must be interpreted as a product but in essence can not express it fully. However, it is reasonable that PBP claims with "impossible or impractical circumstances" are excluded from violating clarity requirement. The term "impossible or impractical circumstances" means any circumstances in which it is impossible or utterly impractical to define the product directly based on its structure or characteristics at the time of the filing of the application. 실시가능 요건의 판단기준에 있어서, 우리나라를 포함하여 미국, 일본 및 유럽(EPO) 모두 청구항에 기재된 발명을 통상의 기술자(제3자)가 과도한 실험 없이 제조하고 사용할 수 있도록 상세하게 기재하여야 한다는 점에서 별다른 차이가 없다. 하지만 미국, 일본 및 유럽은 모두 발명의 실시의 관점에 그 초점을 맞추고 있는데 비해, 우리나라는 명확하고 상세하게 기재된 명세서를 통하여 통상의 기술자가 청구항에 기재된 발명의 기술적 내용과 범위를 명확하게 파악할 수 있게 하는데 즉 발명의 실시를 포함한 그 이상의 관점에 그 초점을 맞추고 있다. 이는 종래 판결들이 명세서 기재요건(실시가능 요건, 뒷받침 요건 및 명확성 요건)의 각 취지를 구별하지 않고 통합적인 표현으로 판시하다가 현재 실시가능 요건만 그 취지를 그대로 사용함에 따른 것으로 보인다. 따라서 실시가능 요건도 판결에 의해 그 취지가 실시가능 요건만의 고유한 기능이 드러나는 방향으로 명확하게 변경할 필요가 있다. 명확성 요건에 있어서, 그 판단기준은 발명의 설명 또는 도면 등에 기재된 사항과 출원 당시의 기술상식을 전체적으로 고려하여 청구항에 기재된 발명이 명확하게 특정되었는지 여부를 살피는 점에서 지금까지 일관된 모습을 보여 왔다. 한편, 실무에서 명확성 요건을 적용함에 있어서 특히 문제가 되는 것은 청구항에 ‘약’, ‘예를 들면’, ‘이상’ 등과 같은 표현이 기재되어 있는 경우이다. 우리 특허청의 심사기준은 청구항에 위와 같은 표현이 기재되어 있으면 일단 명확성 요건을 충족하지 못하는 것으로 보되, 그래도 발명을 명확히 특정할 수 있는 경우에 한하여 명확성 요건을 충족한 것으로 본다는 입장으로 예외적인 경우에 명확성 요건을 충족하는 것처럼 해석하고 있다. 하지만, ‘약’, ‘예를 들면’과 같은 표현은 예외적으로 볼 수 없을 정도로 명확성 요건이 충족된다고 볼 수 있는 경우가 많다. 따라서 현재 우리의 심사기준에서 기본적으로 명확성 요건을 충족하지 못하는 것으로 제시하고 있는 다양한 표현들을 면밀히 검토하여 미국과 유럽의 심사기준처럼 보다 구체적인 설명 및 기준을 제시함으로써 보다 정확한 심사가 이루어 질 수 있도록 하는 게 바람직하다. 뒷받침 요건에 있어서, 우리나라와 미국, 일본, 유럽은 모두 그 취지가 명세서에 공개된 발명의 범위를 넘는 사항에 대하여 특허권이 부여되는 것을 방지하기 위한 것이라는 점에서 별다른 차이가 없다. 다만, 공개의 정도에서 미국은 우리나라, 일본 및 유럽과 미묘한 차이가 있어 보인다. 즉, 미국은 청구항에 기재된 발명을 발명자 내지 출원인이 발명하여 소유했다는 것을 명세서에 개시해야 하는데 반해, 우리나라, 일본 및 유럽은 제3자에게 해당 발명을 제대로 공개하였다고 볼 수 있는 정도로 청구항에 기재된 발명을 명세서에 구체적으로 개시하여야 한다. 뒷받침 요건의 판단기준은 그 취지에 터 잡아서 구체화되어야 함이 타당할 것이고, 이에 따라 우리나라와 미국, 일본, 유럽의 뒷받침 요건의 판단기준도 그 취지와 같이 큰 틀에서 별다른 차이가 없어야 함이 타당하다. 하지만 일본, 유럽은 실질적 뒷받침 요건을 채택하고 있고 미국은 일본, 유럽과는 유사하면서도 다소 다른 개념의 뒷받침 요건을 채택하고 있는 것으로 보이는 데 반해, 우리는 이들 주요국과는 달리 그 판단기준의 입장이 명확하지 않다는 점에 문제가 있다. 따라서 우리의 뒷받침 요건은 형식적 뒷받침 요건을 의미하는지 실질적 뒷받침 요건을 의미하는지 명확하게 제시할 필요가 있어 보인다. 일단 뒷받침 요건의 취지를 고려하여 그에 맞는 판단기준을 세운다면 실질적 뒷받침 요건이 타당하다. 그렇다면 구체적인 해결 방안으로는 추후 대법원 판결에 의해 뒷받침 요건은 실질적 뒷받침 요건을 의미함을 명확히 하거나 아니면 아예 뒷받침 요건은 실질적 뒷받침 요건임을 직접적으로 알 수 있는 방향으로 그 판단기준을 변경하는 방법도 생각해 볼 수 있겠다. 만약 뒷받침 요건의 판단기준을 변경하게 된다면, 참조할 만한 실질적 뒷받침 요건의 모델로는 우리가 이전에 채용했었던, 현재 유럽의 판단기준과 유사한, C 유형의 판단기준이나 일본의 판단기준을 들 수 있고, 이 중에서 일본의 서포트 요건의 판단기준이 그 의미하는 바가 보다 명확하고 실무에도 적용하기가 수월할 것으로 보인다. 뒷받침 요건과 실시가능 요건 간의 관련성을 보면, 양 요건은 그 취지에서 발명의 공개를 담보하기 위한 것이라는 점에서 공통점이 있지만, 뒷받침 요건은 발명의 보호범위를 적정하게 설정하기 위한 것인데 비해 실시가능 요건은 제3자가 발명을 쉽게 실시할 수 있도록 하기 위한 것이라는 점에서 차이점이 있으므로, 전체적으로 양 요건은 그 취지가 서로 다르고, 이에 따라 그 판단기준도 상이하다고 봄이 타당하다. 즉, 구별설의 입장이 타당하다. 마지막으로 특수한 유형의 발명(선택발명, 의약의 용도발명, 수치한정 발명, PBP 청구항 및 기능식 청구항)은 각 발명의 특수성을 감안하여 법원 판결들에 의해 발전되어 왔는데, 결론적으로 특수한 유형의 발명에 적용되는 명세서 기재요건은 일반발명에 적용되는 명세서 기재요건과 별다른 차이가 없다. 구체적 사안에 대하여 살펴보면, ① 선택발명의 경우, 선택발명의 명세서 기재요건을 직접적으로 다룬 유일한 대법원 판결인 대법원 2005후3338 판결은 ‘통상의 기술자가 선택발명으로서의 효과를 이해할 수 있을 정도로 명확하고 충분하게 기재하여야 명세서 기재요건이 구비되었다고 할 수 있다.’고 판시하였는데, 여기서 ‘선택발명으로서의 효과’는 특별히 선택발명의 특수성을 고려한 효과라기보다는 일반발명과 같은 개념의 ‘해당 발명의 효과’의 다른 표현으로 봄이 타당하다. ② 의약의 용도발명의 경우, 명세서에 객관적 약리데이터 또는 이에 대신할 수 있는 정도의 구체적 기재가 없는 경우 통상의 기술자가 해당 발명을 쉽게 실시하기 어려울 뿐 만 아니라 해당 발명의 기술적 의의 등을 파악하기 어려우므로 실시가능 요건뿐만 아니라 뒷받침 요건(실질적 뒷받침 요건)도 충족하지 못한다. 그리고 새로운 투여용법․용량의 발명의 경우, 선행발명과의 대비실험자료 등을 발명의 설명에 기재할 필요까지는 없다는 선택발명의 명세서 기재요건의 법리와 마찬가지로, 명세서 기재요건으로 발명의 설명에 기존의 투여용법․용량과의 대비실험자료 내지 효과의 차이를 설명하는 자료까지 요구하지는 않는다고 봄이 타당하다. 다만 새로운 투여용법․용량에 대해서도 특허성을 인정하여 특허권으로 보호를 해주는 이상, 청구항에 새로운 투여용법․용량이 기재되어 있다면 발명의 설명에도 새로운 투여용법․용량에 따른 약리효과 내지 이를 인정할 만한 구체적인 실험데이터 등이 기재되어야 명세서 기재요건을 충족하는 것으로 봐야 할 것이다. 의약의 용도발명에서 청구항에 ‘~의약’, ‘~치료제’와 같이 포괄적 표현으로 기재한 경우, 특정 유효성분에 대하여 모든 의약용도를 청구하는 것으로 해석할 수 있고, 이는 그 보호받고자 하는 바가 불합리하게 넓기는 하지만 명확하다고 볼 수 있으므로 명확성 요건은 충족하는 것으로 볼 수 있다. ③ 수치한정발명의 경우, ㉮ 명세서에 수치한정의 기술적 특징이 기재되어 있다면, 그 관점에서 통상의 기술자가 출원 당시의 기술상식을 고려하여 명세서에 그 수치한정으로 인한 기술적 의의를 인정할 수 있을 정도로 그 효과 등이 기재되어 있는지 여부를 살펴서 명세서 기재요건을 충족하는지 여부를 판단하면 족하고, ㉯ 명세서에 수치한정의 기술적 특징이 기재되어 있지 않다면, 그 수치한정은 통상의 기술자가 단순히 선택할 수 있는 것으로 보고 명세서 기재요건은 충족한다. 여기서, 선택발명에서도 선행발명과의 비교실험자료까지는 요구하지 않는 것처럼 수치한정 발명의 경우에도, 선택발명에서 선행발명과의 비교실험자료에 대응되는, 임계적 의의를 확인할 수 있는 정량적 기재까지는 요구하지 않는다고 봄이 타당하다. ④ PBP 청구항의 경우, PBP 청구항에 포함된 제조방법으로부터 얻어지는 물건은 청구항 자체로부터 그 구조나 성질을 알기가 어렵고, 그렇다고 발명의 설명 등에 기재된 사항으로부터 파악되는 물건이 PBP 청구항에 포함된 제조방법으로 얻어진 물건을 대표할 수 있다고 보기도 어려우므로, 어느 모로 보나 PBP 청구항은 그 보호받고자 하는 바가 명확히 특정된 것으로 볼 수 없고 이에 따라 명확성 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 봄이 타당하다. 다만 특허법 제42조 제6항의 도입 취지를 고려하면, PBP 청구항이라고 해서 무조건 명확성 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 보기 보다는 진정 PBP 청구항의 경우에는 예외로 봄이 타당해 보인다. 부진정 PBP 청구항이 명확성 요건을 충족하지 못하는 것으로 보는 입장은 일본, 유럽도 마찬가지이다. 이와 같이 부진정 PBP 청구항에 대하여 명확성 요건을 충족하지 못한다고 하면, 현재 심사 중인 특허출원이나 이미 등록되어 있는 특허발명에 포함된 부진정 PBP 청구항을 어떻게 처리해야 하는지에 대하여 혼란이 있을 수 있다. 이에 대해서는 일본의 최근 대응이 참고할 만하다. 즉, 심사단계에서는 보정을 통하여 그리고 등록 후 단계에서는 무효심판절차에서의 정정 또는 정정심판을 통하여, PBP 청구항을 ‘물건을 생산하는 방법의 발명’으로 보정 내지 정정하는 것이다. ⑤ 기능식 청구항의 경우, 지금까지 우리 법원의 판결 동향을 보면 기능식 청구항에 대하여 명세서 기재요건을 충족하지 못하였다고 본 사례는 거의 없어 보인다. 발명의 설명 또는 도면의 기재와 출원 당시의 기술상식을 참작하더라도 청구항에 기재된 기능적 표현에 대응되는 구체적인 구성을 명확하게 도출하기 어려운 경우에는, 명확성 요건은 물론이고 뒷받침 요건, 실시가능 요건도 충족하지 못한다고 볼 수 있다.