에스겔서 18장에 나타난 윤리적 책임에 관한 주석적 연구 : An Exegetical Study of Ezekiel 18 With Special Reference to Ethical Responsibility

전동찬 아세아연합신학대학교 대학원 2000 국내석사

燃料噴射 밸브의 位置가 機關性能 및 排出物에 미치는 影響

전동찬 서울大學校 1987 국내석사

정상 성숙 백서에서 isoflavone투여가 전립선에 미치는 영향

전동찬 연세대학교 대학원 2001 국내석사

다이페놀 식물성 에스트로겐(diphenolic phytoestrogen)인 isoflavone은 약한 에스트로겐 활성도(estrogenic activity)와 5α-reductase 억제 등의 비정상적인 세포증식에 대해 억제작용을 갖고있는 것으로 알려져 있으나, 정상생체내에서의 반응에 대한 보고는 매우 드물다. 본 연구는 정상 성숙 백서에게 대두에서 추출한 고용량의 isoflavone 투여 후, 전립선을 중심으로 이와 관련된 기능 및 형태적 변화를 알아봄으로써 향후 백서를 이용한 연구의 기초자료로 이용하고자 한다. 생후 8주된 정상 수컷 Sprague-Dawley 백서를 두 군으로 나누어 대조군에는 phytoestrogen이 포함되지 않은 American Institute of Nutrition(AIN)-76A만을, 실험군에는 AIN-76A와 체중 kilogram당 330mg의 isoflavone 혼합물(genistein 60.0%, daidzein 19.6%)을 각각 9주간 투여하였다. 전립선내 isoflavone 농도를 gas chromatography-mass spectrometer(GC-MS)를 이용하여 측정하였으며, 체중과 전립선 무게를 측정하였다. 현미경하에서 isoflavone 투여에 따른 조직학적, 형태계측학적 변화를 관찰하였고 전립선에 미치는 내분비적 영향을 보고자 혈청 안드로겐(androgen) 농도를 측정하였다. 본 연구결과, 실험군에서 대조군에 비해 주간별 체중 증가폭 및 전체 체중 증가폭이 유의하게 더 낮았다(p<0.05). 전립선내 isoflavone 농도는 배외측전립선(dorsolateral prostate)에서 daidzein의 경우 대조군이 30.0±10.6ng/g, 실험군이 68.9±28.6ng/g이었고 genistein의 경우 각각 39.3±7.9ng/g, 100.9±42.5ng/g으로 실험군에서 유의하게 높았다(p<0.05). 그러나, 복측전립선(ventral prostate)에서 daldzein의 경우 대조군이 27.7±6.4ng/g, 실험군이 16.9±11.0ng/g이었고 genistein의 경우 각각 28.8±2.7ng/g, 23.7±5.6ng/g으로 두 군간에 유의한 차이는 없었다(p>0.05). 조직학적 관찰결과, 실험군의 dorsolateral prostate에서 간질의 염증소견과 선내강(glandular lumen) 상피세포의 탈락(detachment) 및 변성(degeneration)소견이 관찰되었다. 형태계측과 전립선 무게, 혈청 androgen 농도는 두 군간에 유의한 차이가 없었다. 이상의 결과로 미루어 볼 때, 정상 상태에서는 고용량의 isoflavone 섭취에도 불구하고 이로 인한 전립선내의 측정할 수 있는 형태적 변화가 유도되지 못함을 알 수 있었다. Dorsolateral prostate에서 보인 염증성 변화는 isoflavone에 의해 강화된 estrogenic activity에 의한 것으로 판단되며, ventral prostate의 결과에 대해서는 isoflavone과 estrogen 수용체 등에 대한 조직간 분포 및 활성도 차이와 같은 영역의 차이(regional difference)가 전립선내에 존재할 것으로 추정된다. Isoflavones(diphenolic phytoestrogens) are reported to have weak estrogenic activities and inhibit abnormal cellular proliferation by 5α-reductase. However, reports on its in vivo effect are rare. The object of this study is to determine the functional and morphologic changes of the prostate of normal rats after administration of high dose isoflavones. Sprague-Dawley rats, 8 weeks old, were divided into two groups. The experimental group was fed with AIN(American Institute of Nutrition)-76A containing no detectable phytoestrogens and soy-extracted isoflavones mixture(genistein 60.0%, daidzein 19.6%) 330mg/kg body weight and the control group was fed with AIN-76A for 9 weeks, respectively. Intraprostatic concentrations of isoflavones were measured by GC-MS(gas chromatography-mass spectrometer). The body weight was measured serially and the weight of the prostate was measured at the end of the experiment. Histologic and morphometric changes by isoflavones were assessed under microscopy and serum concentrations of androgens were measured to evaluate the endocrinologic effects on the prostate. Weekly and total body weight gain were significantly lower in experimental group than control group(p<0.05). The daidzein and genistein concentrations in the dorsolateral prostate were 68.9±28.6ng/g and 100.9±42.5ng/g in experimental group, and 30.0±10.6ng/g and 39.3±7.9ng/g in control group, respectively. In ventral prostate of experimental group, the daidzein and genistein concentrations were 16.9±11.0ng/g, 23.7±5.6ng/g and 27.7±6.4ng/g, 28.8±2.7ng/g in control, respectively. The concentrations of daidzein and genistein in dorsolateral prostate were significantly higher in experimental group than control(p<0.05). In the experimental group, severe inflammatory change of stroma and epithelial detachment and degeneration within glandular lumen at the dorsolateral prostate were significant compared to control. In morphometric studies, prostate weight and serum concentrations of androgens, there were no significant changes between control and experimental group. These results suggest that high dose isoflavones do not induce measurable morphologic changes within rat normal prostate. Inflammatory changes in the dorsolateral prostate was thought to be due to estrogenic activity amplified by isoflavones and different results in ventral prostate suggest that regional differences in the distribution and activities of isoflavones and estrogenic receptors may exist in the rat prostate.

特許請求範圍 解釋에 있어서 均等論에 관한 硏究

전동찬 忠南大學校 特許法務大學院 2004 국내석사

In the beginning stage of patent system, the applicants acquired the right only by explaining the contents of the subject matter. But as the technologies get to upgrade so rapidly, the things to infringe another between the inventions get to appear and we are faring the issues about how far the range to be admitted as the patent is. So, the applicants need to thinking out the system which characterizes the claim limits of the subject matter to be admitted as the patent, as well as explaining the contents of it. That is, we call it, "the claim of the patent". But in the case of the simple subject matter, it is relatively easy to identify and understand the limits and the meaning of that limits on the claims forms, while the complicated matter with high-tech methodology in nowadays, we can't express exactly the contents of the subject matter, so for the patent-infringed actions it is so hard to realize that limits only by the literal expressions on the forms in the patented invention. As one of the basic principles in interpreting the meaning of the claim, firstly we may pick up the one that interpretation of the claim should be restricted within the contents of claim on the specification. However, when not understanding and not defining the technical framework and the claim limits of the patent, we can interpret secondly by the supplements data on the specifications such as the drawings and the descriptions. It is one of the requirements of the patent law to register the contents made up of necessary factors to the inventions on the claim sheets. In the case that there is a partial change of the invention but the same identity of that invention is not changed as a whole, if the interpretation strictly made, we get the irrational conclusion that the infringement can not be determined. The Supreme Court have held that the case above must be treated as 'the simple design-around' - that is, the simple design around may be one of the infringement types - without respect to the basic principle discussed above. As a result, the Court sees that simple design-around as one of the technical events on the literal expressions of the claim limits. However, Although there are the differences between patented-inventions and the factors of the infringed matters, admitting the differences as the simple design-around and including the design-around within the infringement types would be the obscure assertion and the arbitrary attitude to the judgement of infringements. Therefore, we can't expect whether the cases treated are the simple design-around or not and so can't get the rational criterion of the judgement. By illustrating the effect of the claim limits on the validity of patented-inventions, for the patentee, there should be the anticipation of the limit to the patent, and for the public, that illustration can play a role to define the ineffective range of the patent. To be so, How to interpret the limits of the patent claims must be opened publicly as a tool to understand that meanings. In fact, much more infringement types are derived from the differences in the partial factors of invention, rather than the infringements from the contravention of the literal meaning. In those cases, the reason we admit that types as infringements is that there are the identities between the patented-inventions and the infringing matters. By nature, the invention is abstractive and the ones are the technical events. Because this abstractive invention should be expressed within the circle of the claim limits, the gap between the inventions as abstractive technical events and the literal expressions on the claim limits would appear inevitably. Therefore, desirable(or correct) interpretation of the claim limits is to find the substance of invention, that is, the technical event underlying the recordings on the claim limits. And in judging the infringement, we have to focus on whether the matter infringes the patented-inventions or not and whether the matter utilizes the technical events derived from the claim limits or not. The doctrine of equivalents initialized by U.S. is the theory developed for the purpose of admitting the infringement of the matter using the technical events and finding the technical events with unbiased attitude in the patented-infringement actions. The reason the doctrine of equivalents is accepted in many judicial precedents, such as the decision of "Byer Geselshaft" of the Supreme Court, the decision of "Ball Spline" of the Japanese Supreme Court and the decision of "Waner Jenkinson" of the U.S. Supreme Court, I think, that the doctrine of equivalent could provide the rational and concrete judgement methodologies in whether the matter is within the identity of the technical events of the patented-inventions or not, in spite of differences between composition factors in both discussed. Requirements of the doctrine of equivalents adopted by Supreme Court, Japanese Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Courts, have some differences but have many common judgement factors as usual. One of the most important requirements is "the interchangeability". The interchangeability can be described as "whether the matter might be the same inventions or not, when the parts of factors as the necessary factors to the patented-inventions are substituted for others". So, this requirement does not have conspicuous differences from "the judgement method of the identification" as accepted so far in our Supreme Court. And as the next requirement, we can pick up "the known-interchangeability". If the interchanging of the factors in the matter would be the self-evident case that anyone who having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, that interchange should be the infringement of the equivalents.