http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 유영선 (검색결과 499 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
폐 Aspergillosis의 임상적 고찰 : 10 Cases Report
유영선,조명준,정혜영 최신의학사 1977 最新醫學 Vol.20 No.1
Aspergillosis is one of the first visceral mycoses to be recognized in man. Pulmonary infection of this genus of Aspergillus is fumigatus, most commonly presenting as secondary invasion of pre-existing cavitary lesion. During the period of January, 1962 to October, 1976, the authors have experienced 10 cases of pulmonary aspergillosis in Chest Surgery Department, N. M. C. , all the cases had been treated with anti-tuberculous drugs for the periods ranging from 2 to 20 years under the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Six of ten were male and four were female. The most common presenting symptoms were intermittent hemoptysis, blood tinged sputum, increased expectoration and cough for a long time. Eight of ten were performed pulmonary resectional surgery, 3 pneumonectomies, 5 lobectomies. All of the cases operated were confirmed by histopathological examination to be aspergillosis superimposed on underlying tuberculosis, bronchiectasis. One patient died following surgery because of acute hepato-renal insufficiency during postopertive Amphotericin B therapy. Remaining all the cases has been doing well in this follow-up period ranging from 6 months to 14 years.
-
-
-
유영선 사법발전재단 2012 사법 Vol.1 No.21
This article discusses the Supreme Court's 2010da95390 en banc decision decided on January 19, 2012, regarding the issue of whether to deal with non-obviousness in the infringement court. Because Korean Patent Act § 133(3) provides that a patent may be invalidated only by decision of the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal, in principle the infringement court cannot invalidate a patent even when causes of invalidation are found in the course of litigation. However, if this principle is applied overly rigidly, it may lead to an absurd situation where the infringement court should ensure the patent right for a patent not worthy of protection. To avoid this, the infringement court should wait until the decision of the Tribunal is confirmed; however it wrongly makes the alleged infringer endure disadvantages in business connection, as well as causing disadvantages to both parties and the court due to the delay. Many theories have been suggested to overcome these problems, and the Supreme Court have adopted some of these theories by consistently holding that the infringement court should deal with novelty and lack of description, resulting in little dispute. However, there have been conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court regarding non-obviousness, arousing controversy over the Supreme Court's view; so there was a strong demand that such issues be decided by en banc decision and clarifying the court's position. Accordingly, this case terminated the dispute by holding that injunction or damage claim grounded on a patent to be certainly invalidated due to lack of non-obviousness should be denied; a decision decided by adopting abuse of a right theory and based on the aim of Patent Act, public interest relating to the patent system, substantial justice and balance between parties. This case has a significant meaning in that it provides theoretical and political grounds for the direction of our patent litigation system. Through the advanced patent litigation system established by this case, the international competitiveness of our courts within recent globalized patent disputes is expected to be enhanced. 이 글은 침해소송법원에서 특허발명의 진보성을 심리·판단할 수 있는지에 관한 대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2010다95390 전원합의체 판결에 대한 해설이다. 우리 특허법 제133조 제3항은 특허심판원의 심결을 통해서만 특허를 무효로 할 수 있다고 규정하고 있으므로, 침해소송법원은 소송 도중에 특허무효 사유가 발견되더라도 문제된 특허를 무효로 선언할 수 없음이 원칙이다. 그러나 이러한 원칙을 엄격히 고수한다면, 무효로서 보호할 가치가 없는 특허에 대해서도 침해소송법원은 하자가 없는 완전한 특허와 동일하게 그 권리를 보장해 주어야 하는 불합리가 발생한다. 이를 피하기 위해 침해소송법원은 등록무효 심결의 확정 시까지 기다려야 하는데, 이 경우 침해혐의자는 그동안 거래관계에서 계속 불이익을 감수해야 하고, 당사자들과 법원은 사건 처리의 지체에 따른 부담을 그대로 감수해야만 한다. 이러한 문제점들을 극복하기 위한 다양한 이론들이 주장되었고, 대법원도 이들 이론 중 일부를 채택하여 신규성 결여 및 기재불비는 침해소송법원이 이를 심리·판단할 수 있는 것으로 일관되게 판시하여 별 논란이 없었다. 그러나 진보성 결여의 경우에는 상반된 취지의 대법원판례가 오랫동안 병존해 오고 있어서 대법원의 입장이 무엇인지에 관한 논란이 많아 전원합의체 판결로 위 문제를 정리해야 할 필요성이 컸다. 이에 대상판결은 특허법의 목적, 특허제도와 관련한 공공의 이익, 실질적 정의와 당사자들 사이의 형평 등을 근거로 권리남용 이론을 채택하여, 진보성이 부정되어 무효로 될 것임이 명백한 특허발명에 기초한 특허침해금지 또는 손해배상 등의 청구는 허용되지 아니한다고 판시함으로써 논란을 정리하였다. 대상판결은 우리 특허소송제도가 나아가야 할 방향에 관한 이론적, 정책적 기초를 제공하였다는 점에서 큰 의의를 가진다. 대상판결을 계기로 우리의 특허소송 제도를 더욱 발전시켜 최근 글로벌화하고 있는 특허분쟁 속에서 우리 법원이 세계적인 경쟁력을 가지게 되기를 기대한다.
-
-
‘제조방법이 기재된 물건발명 청구항(Product by Process Claim)’의 특허청구범위 해석 - 대법원 2015. 1. 22. 선고 2011후927 전원합의체 판결 -
유영선 한국지식재산학회 2015 産業財産權 Vol.- No.48
This article discusses the Supreme Court’s 2011hu927 en banc decision rendered on January 22, 2015. This case provides clear guidelines as follows for the construction of Product-by-Process claims(hereinafter called ‘PbP claims’). “PbP claims should be construed as product invention because the subject of invention in PbP claims is not the process, but the end product itself obtained through the process. Therefore, even though PbP claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. Only the structure or properties implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of PbP claims over the prior art.” These rules should be applied equally when deciding the scope of a right about PbP claims in the infringement suit. The Supreme Court’s 2013hu1726 decision rendered on February 12, 2015 basically had the same view. In addition, according to this decision, in cases where clearly unreasonable circumstance is present, such as the scope of a right drawn from the construction applying aforementioned rules is unduly broad compared to the substance of invention understood from the entire specification, the scope of a right may be limited to the process itself written in the claim. The aforementioned decisions have significant meaning, since they established resonable guidelines for the PbP claims construction which is a highly controversial issue in the world, independently of other countries.
-
-
유영선,박정숙 한국지역사회간호학회 2020 지역사회간호학회지 Vol.31 No.2
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to verify the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the Pain in Older Adults Knowledge Survey (K-POAKS) to assess knowledge of pain in older adults including people with dementia for use in long-term care hospital nurses. Methods: Survey data were collected from a convenience sample of 179 nurses who have worked in long-term care hospitals in B, D and U cities. The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 for internal consistency for test reliability was conducted. The content, criterion-related and construct validity were evaluated using SPSS/WIN 22.0. Results: The KR 20 was .75 and Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was a range of 0.84~1.00. The criterion-related validity was positively correlated with attitudes (r=.28, p<.001) and performance (r=.21, p=.004). The construct validity of K-POAKS was analyzed by conducting the principal component method using the exploratory factor analysis varimax rotation, and seven factors were derived above the eigenvalue of 1.0. The seven factors explained 58.5% of the total variation. Conclusion: The Korean version of the POAKS showed satisfactory internal reliability, content validity, criterion-related validity and construct validity. These results suggest that the K-POAKS could be used as a suitable tool to measure the knowledge of the aged people’s pain, including that of dementia patients for long-term care hospital nurses.
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
