The case holding that the invention applied for “power” does not meet the requirements for invention under Article 29(1) of the Patent Act because it is an invention not available for industrial purposes.

The case holding that the patent application invention does not meet the requirements for invention under Article 29 (1) of the Patent Act on the ground that the patent application invention does not violate the rules of energy conservation in the natural law and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the patent application invention violates the rules of energy conservation among the rules of law, and there is a physical phenomenon contrary to the rules of energy conservation, and even if based on the specification of the patent application invention, it cannot be seen that the patent application invention can obtain more output power than the input power in violation of the rules of energy preservation, and it cannot be seen that there was a new discovery that the patent application invention exceeded or supplements the rules of energy preservation.

Article 29(1) of the Patent Act

A. Shari Shari (Patent Attorney Ha-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

o October 21, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 20, 2004 on the case No. 2003 Won466 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. On July 6, 1996, the Plaintiff filed a patent application for the “power plant” (hereinafter “instant patent application invention”) as stated in the [Attachment 1996 (the date on which the priority claim is asserted). On November 14, 2002, the Plaintiff received a decision of refusal on the ground that the instant patent application invention cannot be used for industrial purposes because it is impossible for the KIPO to implement the patent application invention in violation of the Energy Preservation Rules.

B. The purpose of the instant patent invention is to provide a power generator with an output output with a more output power than the input power, and to provide a power generator with a power generator capable of continuous development without an energy supply outside the beginning stage except for the initial stage. The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant trial decision, on the ground that the purpose of the instant patent application is in violation of the Energy Preservation Act and the principle of the power generator, making it impossible to conduct the instant patent application invention for industrial purposes, making it impossible for the Korean Intellectual Property Office to use the patent application invention for industrial purposes, on the ground that the decision of rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim is justifiable.

【Evidence: No dispute between the Parties】

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the trial decision

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The rules of Energy Preservation Act, which found that the pending invention violated the patent application invention, is not absolute, because it may be changed by new discovery, theory, or invention, and it is not an invention that can be used for industrial purposes, since the patent application invention in this case constitutes a part of a new rules of natural law, which was not known in the past by obtaining more output power than the input power beyond the rules of Energy Preservation.

(b) Markets:

The term "inventions" in the main text of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act refers to "an advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing rules of nature" (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Patent Act). Thus, inventions contrary to rules of nature do not meet the requirements for inventions provided in the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hu744 delivered on September 4, 1998). The patent application invention of this case is composed of the first right line to create the first right line with the first right line and the second right line to create the first right line with the former one, which is set as the first right line to combine the power generation with the latter at the exchange place, so it is difficult to find that the invention of this case goes against rules of energy conservation and can no longer be seen as being in violation of the principle of energy conservation, nor can it be seen as being in violation of the first right line with the principle of energy preservation, and thus, it can be seen as an invention in this case's application of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the patent application invention of this case is deemed to have failed to meet the requirements for invention under the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act. Thus, the trial decision of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)