Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Enablement and support for a claim limited by a numerical range
Supreme Court, Oct. 8, 2024, 2021Hu10886 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 등록무효(특)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a claim to a lens assembly limits the total track length by a numerical range, and a skilled person cannot produce the article across that whole range from the description alone, and the description holds no matter corresponding to that limitation, do the claims fail the enablement requirement of Article 42(3)(i) and the support requirement of Article 42(4)(i) of the Patent Act?
Holding
They did not. The Court held that the degree of drafting required by Article 42(3)(i) of the Patent Act is the degree to which a skilled person, at the level of the art at the filing date, can understand and reproduce the invention accurately from the description alone without undue experiment or special knowledge. Working examples covering the whole numerical range are not required, but where no teaching in the description lets the skilled person infer production across the range, that requirement is not met; and where the skilled person at the filing date cannot extend or generalise what the description discloses to the range in the claims, the claim is not supported under Article 42(4)(i). Applied here, the specification showed working examples only at a total track length of 5.904mm or 5.90mm, none below 5.90mm, and gave no matter corresponding to the upper limit of the range, so the amended claims meet neither requirement and the appeal was dismissed.
Points at issue, verbatim
통상의 기술자가 출원 시의 기술 수준으로 보아 과도한 실험이나 특수한 지식을 부가하지 않고서는 명세서의 기재만으로 수치범위 전체에 걸쳐 물건을 생산하거나 사용할 수 없는 경우, 특허법 제42조 제3항 제1호에서 정한 기재요건을 충족하지 못한다고 보아야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a person ordinarily skilled in the art, in light of the level of technology at the time of filing, cannot produce or use the product across the entire numerical range based solely on the statement in the specification without adding excessive experimentation or special knowledge, it must be regarded as failing to satisfy the description requirement prescribed in Article 42, paragraph (3), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위 조항에서 요구하는 명세서 기재의 정도는 통상의 기술자가 출원 시의 기술 수준으로 보아 과도한 실험이나 특수한 지식을 부가하지 않고서도 명세서의 기재에 의하여 당해 발명을 정확하게 이해할 수 있고 동시에 재현할 수 있는 정도를 말한다
Unofficial English translation
the degree of statement in the specification required under that Article refers to the degree by which a person ordinarily skilled in the art, in light of the level of technology at the time of filing, can accurately understand the invention and at the same time reproduce it from the statement in the specification, without adding excessive experimentation or special knowledge
Factors
- 특허법 제42조 제3항 제1호의 규정 취지 및 위 조항에서 요구하는 명세서 기재의 정도
- 통상의 기술자가 출원 시의 기술 수준으로 보아 과도한 실험이나 특수한 지식을 부가하지 않고서는 명세서의 기재만으로 수치범위 전체에 걸쳐 물건을 생산하거나 사용할 수 없는 경우
- 특허법 제42조 제4항 제1호의 규정 취지 및 청구항이 발명의 설명에 의하여 뒷받침되고 있는지 판단하는 방법
- 출원 시의 기술상식에 비추어 보더라도 발명의 설명에 개시된 내용을 청구범위에 기재된 발명의 범위까지 확장 내지 일반화할 수 없는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• The purport of Article 42, paragraph (3), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act and the degree of statement in the specification required under that Article
• Where a person ordinarily skilled in the art, in light of the level of technology at the time of filing, cannot produce or use the product across the entire numerical range based solely on the statement in the specification without adding excessive experimentation or special knowledge
• The purport of Article 42, paragraph (4), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act and the method for determining whether a claim is supported by the description of the invention
• Where the content disclosed in the description of the invention cannot be extended or generalized to the scope of the invention stated in the claims even in light of the common general knowledge in the art at the time of filing
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2003후2072 판결(공2007상, 72)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu2072 decided November 24, 2006 (Gong 2007 Sang, 72)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2003후2072 판결(공2007상, 72), 대법원 2015. 9. 24. 선고 2013후525 판결(공2015하, 1626) / [2] 대법원 2006. 5. 11. 선고 2004후1120 판결(공2006상, 1070), 대법원 2006. 10. 13. 선고 2004후776 판결(공2006하, 1936)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the description gives no manufacturing method at all for the part of the numerical range below the disclosed examples, what suggestion or implication would be enough for a skilled person to infer that a working article can be made there?
A later Supreme Court decision revising the enablement or support test for claims limited by a numerical range would call for this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 42(3)(i) or Article 42(4)(i) of the Patent Act, or a change in the Patent Examination Guidelines on enablement.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Patent Court, in its judgment of 26 August 2021 (2020Heo6323), held that claims 1, 13 to 15, 21, 32 to 36 and 39 of the amended invention, each limited by the same total track length and TTL/EFL ranges, were not described clearly and in detail so that a skilled person could carry out the invention easily, and were not supported by the description. The decision does not set out the Patent Court's reasoning on either point beyond that statement.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It stated the law on both requirements, then examined the record: the description gives no manufacturing method by which the whole range of the limited total track length can yield a lens assembly meeting the TTL/EFL and image-quality conditions, the disclosed examples fall only at 5.904mm or 5.90mm, and nothing suggests production below 5.90mm. It therefore held the amended claims fail both requirements, found no misstatement of law or failure to examine by the court below, and dismissed the appeal with the unanimous agreement of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A specification that teaches a manufacturing method by which the skilled person can make the article across the whole limited range without undue experiment or special knowledge.
- A specification in which matter corresponding to the numerical limitation in the claims appears in the description, or in which the disclosed content can be extended or generalised to that range on the common general knowledge at the filing date.
- A claim whose numerical limitation sits inside the range actually covered by the disclosed working examples, so that the gap between the claim and the description does not arise.
Record verification notes
Set each claim's numerical limits against the working examples and any manufacturing method in the description, and ask separately whether the whole range is enabled and whether the limitation has corresponding matter, since the Court decided both points on the same record. Working examples covering the entire range are not themselves required, so look for teaching, suggestion or implication rather than for matching figures alone. Read claim by claim: the Court examined only the claims limited by the same total track length and TTL/EFL ranges.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 발명의 설명을 명확하고 상세하게 적을 것을 정한 특허법 제42조 제3항 제1호의 규정 취지 및 위 조항에서 요구하는 명세서 기재의 정도 / 통상의 기술자가 출원 시의 기술 수준으로 보아 과도한 실험이나 특수한 지식을 부가하지 않고서는 명세서의 기재만으로 수치범위 전체에 걸쳐 물건을 생산하거나 사용할 수 없는 경우, 특허법 제42조 제3항 제1호에서 정한 기재요건을 충족하지 못한다고 보아야 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 특허법 제42조 제4항 제1호의 규정 취지 및 청구항이 발명의 설명에 의하여 뒷받침되고 있는지 판단하는 방법 / 출원 시의 기술상식에 비추어 보더라도 발명의 설명에 개시된 내용을 청구범위에 기재된 발명의 범위까지 확장 내지 일반화할 수 없는 경우, 청구범위가 발명의 설명에 의하여 뒷받침된다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purport of Article 42, paragraph (3), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act, which provides that the description of the invention shall be stated clearly and in detail, and the degree of statement in the specification required under that Article / Whether, where a person ordinarily skilled in the art, in light of the level of technology at the time of filing, cannot produce or use the product across the entire numerical range based solely on the statement in the specification without adding excessive experimentation or special knowledge, it must be regarded as failing to satisfy the description requirement prescribed in Article 42, paragraph (3), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act (affirmative) [2] The purport of Article 42, paragraph (4), subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act and the method for determining whether a claim is supported by the description of the invention / Whether, where the content disclosed in the description of the invention cannot be extended or generalized to the scope of the invention stated in the claims even in light of the common general knowledge in the art at the time of filing, the claims can be regarded as being supported by the description of the invention (negative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 특허법 제42조 제3항 제1호 [2] 특허법 제42조 제4항 제1호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger