(b) The case holding that the merits cannot be registered on the ground that the quoted designs and professional engineer awards are identical and their basic composition are similar;

(b) The case holding that since the quoted design and the professional engineer prize are identical and their basic composition are similar, a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the device pertains may easily implement it, and thus, the original proposal cannot be registered;

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

1. As to the first ground for appeal:

According to Article 15 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (Ordinance No. 402 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 402 of December 31, 1973), which applies mutatis mutandis to an application, a request, or other procedures for utility model registration pursuant to Article 7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Utility Model Act (Ordinance No. 402 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 401 of December 31, 1973), an applicant may supplement the application, specification, and drawings only before the decision of publication of the application, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2). However, a person who submitted documents, samples, or other things concerning the application, request, or other procedures to the Korean Intellectual Property Office may supplement them only during the examination, trial, appeal, trial, or review. In comparison with the above provisions, an applicant shall submit the special provisions on Article 15 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (Ordinance No. 401 of December 31, 1973).

In this case, where an applicant made a rejection ruling pursuant to the decision of rejection after the publication of the application of this case and the appeal is pending, it is just that the original decision was subject to the determination of the application before supplementation in the same purport, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or inconsistent reasoning such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to original decision, this case’s trial ruling is composed of 1974.6.21, and is applied for a combination of patent within 1980.9, and is also related to 1981.22 so that the device of this case’s embling equipment and 64.2 can be attached to the 1st and 5th of the 7th of the base base base base rate for the device of this case’s 7th of base base rate for the device of this case’s 5th of base rate for the device of this case’s 5th of base rate for the device of this case’s 5th of base rate for the device of this case’s 7th of base rate for the device of this case’s 7th of base rate for the device of this case’s 4th of base rate for the device of this case’s embling and 15th of base rate for the device of this case’s embling and 12th of base rate for the 15th of base rate

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)