[2] The meaning of the so-called "business method invention (BM invention)" in computer-related inventions and the elements for its establishment

[3] The case rejecting the patent registration on the ground that the patent application invention whose name "company travel plan, management system, and method" cannot be deemed as a technical idea utilizing the law of nature

[2] In a computer-related invention, the so-called “business method invention” refers to a new business system or method invention built using information technology. For this purpose, information processing by software must be specifically realized on a computer, using hardware. This means that software is not merely read by a computer, but is read on a computer, and software is built by an information processing unit or its action method specifically performing information processing to achieve a specific purpose by a specific mutual cooperation method with hardware. In addition, in order to complete it as an invention, the descriptions of the claim must not be included in a simple idea, and all essential elements for achieving the purpose of the invention must be clearly and clearly stated. Accordingly, in order to establish a BM invention, the entire claim should not merely be used by a person’s mental activities or simply use a specific function for the purpose of the computer or Internet, or it should not be used by a new information processing unit or an information processing unit to achieve a specific purpose by processing information through a specific means of mutual cooperation with the computer system.

[3] The case rejecting the patent registration on the ground that the invention for which the name "company travel plan, management system, and method" is composed mainly of the act of a person who uses the general function of computer or Internet system, and it cannot be deemed as a technical idea utilizing the law of nature, rather than that the software and hardware are constructed by the information processing system or by the action of the information processing system that performs the processing of information to achieve a specific purpose by a specific mutually collaborative means

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2]

The plaintiff filed a patent application with the name "company travel plan and management system and method" under Article 1996-39196 of the application number on September 6, 1996 (priority date: September 6, 1995). On September 15, 2004, the plaintiff was notified by the Korean Intellectual Property Office of the opinion that "a series of stages commenced in a claim shall not be deemed as an artificial act based on human mental activities, and thus a patent cannot be the subject of patent since it constitutes a technical idea utilizing natural law." On March 15, 2005, the plaintiff revised the patent claim on May 12 through 17, 2005, but filed a patent application on May 10, 2005 without stating the method of concrete realization by using the data processing system, and on May 10, 2005, it cannot be deemed that each stage of the claim is the subject of the patent application and the decision to reject the patent application on September 15, 2015."

The instant Claim No. 12 invention is linked to the computer reservation system of airlines, etc., and is related to the methods of travel planning, cost reporting, and travel management connected to computers by a travel planner, department manager, travel manager, etc. in the company. It is characterized by the following: (a) preparation of a travel request; (b) preparation of an approval on a travel plan; (c) preparation of a cost report; (d) approval on a cost report; and (e) receipt of a completed travel reservation; and (e) the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant Claim No. 12 invention is not an invention because it uses a human mental activity, “approval on a travel plan or a cost report,” which does not constitute an invention.

2. Whether the instant Claim 12 invention constitutes “industrially usable inventions”

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, experience, and purport of the whole pleadings]

(a) Legal doctrine;

(1) A patent shall be “an invention available for industrial purposes” (Article 29(1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001; hereinafter the same). The term “invention” in this context refers to “an invention which is advanced by creating a technical idea utilizing rules of nature” (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Patent Act). Thus, where the invention described in the claim is using rules of natural law itself or human mental activities, logic, and economic rules, it shall not be deemed an invention. The determination of whether to use rules of nature should be made as a whole. Thus, even if part of the invention described in the claim is used with rules of nature, if it is determined that the whole claim does not use rules of nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu3149, May 16, 2003).

(2) In a computer-related invention, the so-called “business method invention” (hereinafter “BM invention”) refers to a new business system or method invention built using information technology, and in order to do so, information processing by software must be specifically realized using hardware (see the above Supreme Court Decision).

It is not limited to simply read by a computer, but it means that the software is read to a computer and the data processing unit or the action method is built by the data processing unit that specifically performs the processing of information to achieve a specific purpose by mutual cooperation means with the hardware, and the software is constructed. Of course, in order to be completed as an invention, the entry of the claim in the claim must not stay at the level of merely raising an idea, and all essential elements for achieving the purpose of the invention must be specified specifically and clearly.

Therefore, in order to establish a BM invention, the claim as a whole should not be deemed as either a person’s mental activity or a mere use of a computer or Internet’s general function. On the computer system, an information processing unit that specifically performs information processing to achieve a specific purpose by either specific means of mutual cooperation between software and hardware, or a method of action is established, so that a computer or Internet can have a new effect more than that simply used.

(b) Markets:

(i)the purpose and composition of the invention;

The purpose of the instant Claim 12 is to provide the company travel planning, cost reporting, and travel management system working on the company database environment that enables the company travel information, and the company travel manager to provide the company travel-related analysis data related to the whole company, and to solve the problems arising from the company travel management company's full dependence on the company through telephone communications, etc. when the company tour manager needs prior travel information, or when the company's department manager prepares related data in a passive manner, or fully depend on the company travel management company through telephone communications, etc., the purpose of the instant Claim 12 invention is to provide the company travel planning, cost notification, and the company travel management method through the company travel planning, and the company travel management method that operates on the company database environment that enables the company's financial consumption. To achieve this purpose, it constitutes the type of BM invention as shown in Attachment 1.

(2) Whether the case constitutes a technical idea using the law of nature

First of all, this article examines the most important issues between the parties, focusing on the stage of obtaining the approval of 3 and 5.

The components 3 and 5 are the stages of obtaining approval for a travel plan and a cost report through a travel management system, and the hardware of software processing and a travel management system to carry out this is included. However, the software and hardware are included only in the travel management system, which is a very abstract term.

In other words, in examining the detailed description and drawings of the claim of the instant Claim No. 12, the entity that grants such approval is bound to be an approving authority in the company, and for the purpose of executing the invention, it appears that the above approval procedure is indispensable. As such, whether the above travel management system obtains approval from the above approving authority through any specific means or procedure for either a travel plan or a cost report requested by company travelers, etc., or whether the above travel management system obtains approval from the above approving authority through any specific means or procedure, and it is unclear how the act of the approving authority and the above system are related to a certain degree, and the specific cooperative means and the relationship between them are unclear, and simply obtain approval through the travel management system.

In addition, the entire claim does not specifically limit how specific cooperative means (e.g., preparation and reporting of travel plans or cost reports, automatic summary reports or approved screens implemented by specific systems to ensure adequate approval and detailed reimbursement of expenses, etc. to the approving authority. In this case, the travel plan and cost reporting cycles to enable proper management of company resources and the travel decision chains, etc. to be made available to the company tour managers or departments, etc. at the same time) are implemented. In addition, the software and hardware are merely a mere mere use of the intrinsic function of computer or Internet system, rather than a mere mere use of a computer or Internet system, as a whole, by constructing the information processing processing system or its action to achieve a specific purpose by a specific mutual cooperative means. Thus, the invention of this case is not a technical act of a person who uses the aforementioned computer or Internet system as a whole.

As to this, the plaintiff argued to the effect that it constitutes a technical idea that uses the natural law, since the plaintiff explicitly excluded the mental activities of human beings who should be approved by expressing "the stage of obtaining approval through the travel management system" and prepared the claim to the effect that it constitutes a person who acts as a whole. However, whether a person's mental activity is essential in the contents of the claim should be determined from the contents of the invention interpreted by the entire claim. It is not determined based on whether the method stated by the subject of the claim or the stage of human activity is explicitly stated in the text of the claim. Thus, the plaintiff's above argument is

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, the invention of Paragraph 12 of this case cannot be seen as an invention that can be used for industrial purposes under the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the former Patent Act, and thus, it cannot be registered as a patent.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as long as there is a ground for rejection of patent for the invention of Paragraph 12 of this case, all patent registrations for the invention of this case should be rejected, and the trial decision of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)