[1] The case holding that the patent application invention can easily be seen from the cited invention as to the manufacturing method of food mixing plant protein with animal protein and animal protein

[2] Whether the court below should give the applicant an opportunity to submit a written opinion where the court below rendered a trial decision on the grounds substantially identical to the grounds for rejection in the rejection ruling (negative)

[1] The case holding that the patent application invention can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention belongs, on the grounds that the patent application invention is merely a simple combination of the implied manufacturing technology being openly implemented in the quoted invention using the bean, the bean, and the animal single-speak quality, and that there is no significant action effect thereby, and that the patent application invention is not recognized as a unique technology in the patent application invention since it is not a specific technology in the patent application invention since the patent application invention is merely a combination of the implied manufacturing technology being made in the quoted invention using the bean, the speak and the animal single-speak quality, and there is no significant action effect thereby.

[2] In a case where the court below did not make a trial decision for a new reason different from the ruling of rejection, but did not give the applicant an opportunity to submit a written opinion even in such a case where the court below rendered a trial decision on the premise that prior art as stated in the specification is substantially the same as the reason for rejection in the ruling

[1] Article 29(2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 159(1) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu30 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3192), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu781 delivered on November 26, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 85), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu221 delivered on May 30, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 1879)

Abakikikis Aba, Shackslelele, etc. (Patent Attorney Kim Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na2948 dated December 24, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the reasoning of the decision of the court below in light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is just in the court below to compare the invention of this case as to food whose principal ingredient is protein and vegetable protein and the manufacturing method thereof, which were applied on March 25, 1993, with the invention of this case, which was made by the applicant on August 10, 1989, open to the public international application on August 10, 1989, with high-purpose vegetable nutrition and the manufacturing method thereof contained in the Japo's Patent vegetable vegetable as well as the vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable as well as animal vegetable vegetable as the vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable.

The court below did not render a ruling for a new reason different from the ruling of rejection, but rendered a ruling for the same reason as the reasons for rejection in the ruling, on the premise of prior art publicly notified in the specification, and in such a case, it does not require the applicant to give an opportunity to submit a written opinion. The part of the argument disputing this cannot be accepted.

As long as the inventive step cannot be recognized in the patent application invention of this case as above, the part concerning the argument that the inventive step exists shall not be accepted.

Therefore, 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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)