[1] Criteria for determining invention under the Patent Act

[2] The case holding that the patent application invention does not constitute an invention for industrial use

[1] In order to obtain a patent under the Patent Act, "an invention" must be "an invention that can be used for industry" (the main sentence of Article 29 (1)), and "an invention" under the Patent Act means "an invention which is highly advanced as a creation of a technical idea utilizing rules of nature" (Article 2 (1) 1), so if an invention described in a claim falls under or is used for rules other than those of natural law, artificial decision or commitment, academic formula, human mental activity, etc., it shall not be an invention under the Patent Act. The issue of whether an invention falls under the patent law is determined as a whole. Thus, if it is determined that a part of the invention described in the claim is used with rules of nature using rules of nature as a whole, and if it is determined that a part of the invention described in the claim is not used for rules of nature as a whole, it does not constitute an invention under the Patent Act, and if it is determined that the whole claim is used for rules of nature as a whole

[2] The case holding that the invention claimed in the patent application shall include ① the first step in distribution of bar codes Sticks and calendars to each discharger at the competent authority, ② the second step in distribution of bar codes Sticks to garbage bags by each discharger, ③ the third step in the process of collection and disposal, ④ the third step in which the collection collector collected and disposed of garbage bags, ④ the fourth step in which the waste bags which are mistakenly classified are sold in front and ordered the relevant discharger to take corrective measures, and ultimately, the patent application invention shall be comprehensively managed with statistics accumulated with data obtained at each stage, and the patent application invention shall include source straws, calendar sites, garbage bags, and bar codes packs using computers, etc., but the above steps, which are the elements of the patent application invention, do not include specific means using the aforementioned hardware and software combined with the above hardware and software, and it shall not constitute an artificial act by the competent authority, and it shall not be determined that the invention can not be executed as a whole under the relevant laws or regulations, and it shall not be conducted as a whole by the applicant's agency.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act and Article 29 (1) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act and Article 29 (1) of the Patent Act

A (Supplementary Records of Patent Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

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 June 30, 200 on the case No. 99 Won1988 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

[Evidence: Evidence Nos. 2, 3, and No. 1, 2]

(a) Details of the procedure at the Korean Intellectual Property Office;

(1) The Plaintiff filed a patent application (application number C) with respect to the invention of this case named “B,” but the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a ruling of rejection on April 30, 199 on the ground that the invention of this case was a mental activity, such as a mutual agreement, and thus, it does not constitute an invention that can be used for industry, and thus, it is not possible to obtain a patent on the ground that it violates Article 29(1) of the Patent Act.

(2) In this case, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the above rejection ruling with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal tried the case as 99 Won1988 and rendered a trial ruling dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on June 30, 200.

B. Summary of the pending invention

The invention of this case pertains to the method of the integrated management of recycling of household garbage for the separation and removal of garbage. The scope of the claim is "the integrated management method of recycling of household garbage, in which each waste discharger's personal information is input, and waste which is accurately separated in accordance with the provisions prescribed, is distributed to each waste discharger, and each waste discharger shall be discharged by putting it in a defined garbage bag, and the bar code tag in which personal information on the waste discharger is stored shall be attached to the garbage bag. The collector shall accurately separate the discharged waste for each required day and transfer it to the collection collection center for the disposal of recyclable waste and the garbage to be incinerated, and the garbage bags which are mistakenly classified is "the comprehensive management method of recycling household garbage" to comprehensively manage household garbage by putting in the front the bar code attached to the waste so that the materials obtained in each process of ordering the relevant discharger to take corrective measures.

C. Summary of the reasoning for the instant trial decision

The patent application invention of this case is about the first step in which the bar code stickerss and the calendars indicating garbage emissions are input personal information of the discharger are distributed to the waste discharger at the competent authority, the second step in which the garbage discharger discharges the bar code CDs by attaching them to the garbage bag, the third step in which the collector separates the waste discharged from the garbage bag, the third step in which the garbage bags which are mistakenly classified in the process of disposing of separate collected garbage are used, and the fourth step in which the garbage bags which are classified in the process of disposing of the separated garbage are composed of the comprehensive management method of household garbage recycling, which is composed of the four stages in which the bar code attached in front is read to order the relevant discharger to take corrective measures. The purpose of the patent application invention

However, the fourth step is to issue a corrective order to a person who has mistakenly classified garbage by the collector, and it cannot be deemed as a technical idea using the law of nature. Moreover, even if the overall composition of the invention in the application in this case is similar to the waste treatment guidelines between the relevant administrative agency, the waste discharger and the waste collector, and it cannot be deemed as a technical idea using the law of nature. Thus, the invention in the application in this case does not constitute an invention that can be used for industry.

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the grounds for revocation of the Plaintiff’s trial decision

(1) The garbage bags that are mistakenly classified in the course of treating the separated waste, which is the fourth stage of the invention for the application of this case, are the creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature, and even if the fourth stage is not the creation of technical ideas, as long as the first or third stage is the creation of technical ideas, the entire invention including the fourth stage is naturally the creation of technical ideas, and it cannot be said that the stage constituting the invention is not the whole invention, not the technical idea, but the entire invention is an invention for industrial use under the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act. Thus, the invention for the application of this case constitutes an invention that can be used for an industry under the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act.

(2) The patent application invention of this case is a useful invention that can be used for the waste treatment industry, which is a creative creation of technical ideas, since it is necessary to implement the method inherent in each stage of business model on “B.”

(b) Markets:

(1) Criteria for determining invention under the Patent Act

In order to obtain a patent under the Patent Act, "an invention which can be used for industry" (the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act), and "an invention" under the Patent Act means "an invention which is advanced as a creation of technical ideas utilizing rules of nature" (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Patent Act). Therefore, an invention does not constitute an invention under the Patent Act if the invention falls under or is used as a legal rule other than those of natural law, artificial decision or promise, academic public sense, human mental activity, or a person's mental activity.

In addition, the issue of whether the use of natural law for an invention under the Patent Act constitutes an invention under the Patent Act shall be determined as a whole. Thus, if the part of the invention described in the claim is judged not to use the natural law as a whole, even if there are parts using the natural law, it does not constitute an invention under the Patent Act. On the contrary, the part of the invention described in the claim is not used with the natural law, and if it is determined

(2) Whether the invention of this case constitutes an invention under the Patent Act

(a)The invention of this case is: (a) the first step to distribute the bar code Sticks and calendars to each discharger at the competent authorities; (2) each discharger shall set out the second step to release the bar code Sticks by attaching them to the garbage bags; (c) the third step to go through the process of collection and disposal by the collectors; and (4) the garbage bags mistakenly classified are carried out at the fourth step to order the corrective order by reading the bar code attached to the front part; and (e) ultimately, the household garbage is comprehensively managed by compiling statistics that accumulate the data obtained at each stage.

(b)First, we examine whether the respective stages of the invention in this case are applying the law of nature.

First of all, the first step includes the means of ‘broat' and ‘sal calendar', but as a whole, the means is merely used as a tool, and the distribution of barcopiers and calendars by the competent authorities is based on artificial decisions based on human mental activities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the law of nature is used.

Next, the above phase 2 includes the means of "bris bags", but as a whole, the means is merely used as a tool, and it is a factual act based on a human mental activity conducted in accordance with the pre-determined provision, which is performed by a garbage discharger by attaching his personal information on a garbage bag and putting accurate separate regulations into a garbage bag. Thus, it cannot be said that it uses the law of nature.

In addition, the third phase is merely an act of fact based on the human mental activities of removing and treating garbage discharged by the collector accurately by his/her own judgment and transporting garbage to the collection center, and it is merely an act of fact based on the human mental activities of treating garbage by selecting garbage. It cannot be said that the third phase is also an

Finally, although the above 4-level 4 contains a means to read bar codes by using computers, it is not done by a system connected to computer hardware according to the read information, but rather, by the whole, it is merely a device used as a tool and it is merely a human mental act based on human mental activity that instructs the relevant discharger to issue a corrective order by reading bar codes. Thus, it cannot be said that the above 4-level 4-level 4-level 4-level is a human act based on human mental activity that is based on the reading of bar codes.

(c)Next, we will examine whether the entire invention of this case is utilizing the law of nature.

The patent application invention of this case contains bar codes, calendar sites, garbage bags, and other means of hardware and software using computers, etc., but the above stages, which are the elements of the patent application invention of this case, do not include specific means using the aforementioned hardware and software, and are merely a human mental activity by using them as a tool, and the patent application invention of this case where living garbage is comprehensively managed with statistics accumulated in each of the above stages and the data obtained in the above stages can not be executed by itself, and it cannot be said that the application invention of this case can not be executed by itself, and it is merely an artificial decision made by the competent administrative agency, waste discharger, and collection, or a mental decision or an artificial decision made by the above competent administrative agency, etc. based on the agreement, etc., and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the invention of this case is merely a use of natural law.

(D) Whether the patented invention in this case is a business model invention

In general, business model invention means an invention related to a new business system or method realized using information technology, and in order to belong to such general business model invention, data processing by software should be specifically realized using computer hardware. The patent application invention in this case is not dealt with on the computer, but processed on the off-line, as well as on the off-line, since the system connected with software and hardware is not specifically realized, it does not belong to the category of such general business model invention.

C. Sub-committee

The invention in this case cannot be deemed as a creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature, and thus, cannot be patented in violation of the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act. Accordingly, the trial decision in this case is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

Judge Lee Jin-sung (Presiding Judge)