A. Criteria for determining the inventive step of an invention

(b) the meaning and method of determining the completed invention;

(a) there is no established standard for determining the degree of the difficulty in the creation to measure the inventive step of the invention, but at least the effects of the patented-registered technology have been significantly improved compared to the effects of the prior art, and where it appears that a person with ordinary knowledge in that field could not easily make an invention by prior art, or where new technical methods are added, the inventive step of the invention cannot be recognized;

B. A patentable invention shall be completed, and completed invention shall be specific to the extent that the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can obtain the technical effect aimed at repeatedly working the invention, and its determination shall be made carefully and carefully based on the technical level as at the time of the filing of the application, taking into account the purpose, composition, effect of the invention described in the specification of the patent application as a whole, and shall not be limited to the specific invention among the detailed descriptions of the invention.

Article 6 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Hu769 delivered on November 24, 1989 (Gong1990, 149) 90Hu1086 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2829) 92Hu230 delivered on July 24, 1992

Furthermore, the Central Patent Office of Law, Attorney Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 192 September 30, 1992 Decision 91Na557

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the first and third points

The standard of determining the degree of difficulty in the creation to measure the inventive step of an invention is not established, but at least the effects of patent-registered technology have been significantly improved compared to the effects of prior art, and it is not possible to recognize the inventive step of an invention unless a person with ordinary knowledge in that field shows that the invention can not be easily made by prior art, or a person with new technical method is added (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Hu769, Nov. 24, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1086, Oct. 22, 191).

According to the records, the original invention of this case filed on October 30, 1986 and rejected on January 9, 191 is related to the invention of this case and its manufacturing method, which is characterized by adding polypropye to polypropyrosiss, and which is made public prior to the patent application of the original invention, the quoted invention of this case (the Patent Gazette No. 57-192458), which is made public prior to the patent application of the original invention, is related to the invention of this case, which is highly similar in terms of the composition and manufacturing method to the extent that it is difficult for the applicant to find that there is no obvious difference between the original invention of this case and the original invention of this case, and it is hard for the applicant to find that there is no obvious difference between the original invention of this case and the original invention of this case in terms of the composition and manufacturing effect of the original invention of this case.

On the second ground for appeal

The invention eligible for a patent shall be completed, and the completed invention shall be specific to the extent that the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can obtain the technical effect of the purpose by repeating it, and its determination shall be made carefully and carefully based on the technical level at the time of the application in consideration of the purpose, composition, operation effect, etc. of the invention described in the specification of the patent application as a whole, and it shall not be limited to the specific invention among the detailed descriptions of the invention.

According to the records, a specific example of the patent for a quoted invention is indicated in the detailed license of the patent, but a example of using a polypropyol is not indicated, but a polypropyol and propyol is merely a difference between middle and part body, and even if examining the detailed description of the claim or the invention in the specification, it can be recognized that a polypropyol can be used as a medium body component in the quoted invention. Thus, even if a example of using polypropyol is not indicated in a specific license example, the cited invention cannot be deemed an unsatisfy invention. There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)