# Reading patent terms through the specification A Korean cathode-material case shows how dimensions and cobalt-distribution figures affected the meaning of “grain boundary.” Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1849 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Reading patent terms through the specification A Korean cathode-material case shows how dimensions and cobalt-distribution figures affected the meaning of “grain boundary.” Patents 2026.10.19 published IPLEX 7 min read The technical issue The Korean Patent Court’s judgment 2025Heo10512 of 16 July 2026 concerns patent No. 2068513, “Polycrystalline metal oxide, methods of making it, and products containing it.” The cathode material sought stability while limiting costly cobalt. Claim 1 places higher cobalt concentrations at grain boundaries between lithium-nickel-oxygen crystallites. Following IPTAB’s 31 July 2025 invalidation decision, the owner argued that “grain boundary” should retain its conventional scientific meaning: an approximately 0.5–1 nm boundary between differently oriented crystallites. Reading patent terms through the specification — Figure 2 Numbers and figures defined a broader region The specification instead described 1–200 nm, with elemental-distribution figures showing 50–150 nm and an average around 100 nm. Considering the technical problem and EDX figures, the court construed the term as a cobalt-rich region 1–200 nm thick. It did not authorize arbitrary expansion or restriction of claims from the description. Japanese publication 2003-59489, published on 28 February 2003, called a roughly 50 nm cobalt-enriched zone a region near the primary-particle surface. Despite different names, that structure corresponded to the construed boundary, and its sintered lithium-nickel-oxygen particles supplied the relevant arrangement. Reading patent terms through the specification — Figure 3 Different claims failed on different grounds Claims 1, 3 and 11 lacked both novelty and inventive step over prior invention 5. Claims 2, 4–8 and 10 lacked inventive step; the additional ranges lacked a disclosed technical significance beyond routine selection. Claims 9 and 12, adding a protective coating and a battery using the coated particle, lacked inventive step over inventions 5 and 4 together. Method claim 13 failed for inventive step on invention 5 alone or that combination, depending on the particle. The court upheld invalidation and dismissed the owner’s challenge; it did not find all thirteen claims devoid of novelty. Reading patent terms through the specification — Figure 4 Sufficiency and clarity remained separate questions The court rejected insufficiency and clarity attacks: concentration ranges and EDX measurement disclosed how to assess the difference, while the approximately 3 atomic-percent cobalt distribution helped explain “substantially uniform.” Inventions 1 and 2 did not establish the relevant boundary enrichment and differed in ratios or processing. Practitioners should define unusual terms consistently through regions, dimensions and methods, compare structures even where terminology differs, and explain why claimed numerical ranges matter. Clear disclosure alone does not establish novelty or inventive step. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the source material. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Patents & utility models ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE The technical issue Numbers and figures defined a broader region Different claims failed on different grounds Sufficiency and clarity remained separate questions TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Trademark licensing, confusing packaging and cancellation ↗ Older Coupang design complaint: resolving a sales suspension ↗ Related insights Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.29 Withdrawing a patent application during an appeal against refusal Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10510 explains why withdrawing an application removed the legal interest in challenging the decision upholding its refusal. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.28 Saxophone pad repairs: process wording and inventive step A Korean judgment compares a product-by-process claim with a repair manual and video, focusing on the finished pad structure. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.27 Humidity ranges and inventive step in semiconductor processing A Korean patent judgment examines metal-containing resists, numerical humidity limits and the technical reasons for combining prior art. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/patent - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1849 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/patent#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1849#article-1849-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1849#article-1849-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1849#article-1849-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1849#article-1849-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1850 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-design-sales-resumption-1848 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882