The purpose of the previous notification of reasons for rejection and the description of the notice of reasons for rejection

Article 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 751 of September 4, 1990) which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 11(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Utility Model Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 751 of September 4, 1990) provides that if an examiner intends to refuse an application, he/she shall notify the applicant of the grounds for rejection in writing, specifying in detail the reasons for rejection. This decision requires a high level of expertise in determining whether to allow registration of the proposal for application, and the examiner cannot have any such knowledge, so it is necessary to prevent any error caused by it, and the rejection ruling is immediately harsh to the applicant without giving the applicant an opportunity to correct any error easily caused by the seafarerism system. Thus, even if the notification of rejection is abstract or generally stated to a certain extent, if it is sufficient that the applicant has an ordinary knowledge in the technical field to understand it as a whole.

Article 24-2(2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990), Article 11(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Utility Model Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 751 of Sept. 4, 1990), Article 63 of the Patent Act, Article 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 750 of Sept. 4, 1990) (see the current Article 48)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Choi Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Jong-chul

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94Na986 dated June 14, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal by applicants are examined.

According to Article 24-2 (2) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of Jan. 13, 1990), an examiner shall notify the applicant of the grounds for rejection and give him an opportunity to submit a written opinion within a specified period. Article 43 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 11 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Utility Model Act provides that if an examiner intends to refuse an application, he/she shall notify the applicant of the reasons for rejection in writing. This provision requires a high level of expertise in determining whether to allow the registration of the application, and the examiner shall not have any such knowledge because he/she could prevent the error, and the applicant shall be given an opportunity to correct any error easily caused by the seafarerism by explaining to the applicant, and therefore, the field of rejection shall be excessively harsh to the applicant, even if the notification of reasons for rejection is either abstract or abstractly stated in the overall purport of the application, if it is sufficient to understand that the applicant has ordinary knowledge as a whole.

The gist of the grounds of appeal of this case is that the notice of the ground of appeal of this case and the ruling of rejection of this case are unlawful because they are abstractly written and notified to the extent that they could not know the contents, and there is an error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles in the original decision of this case

However, according to the records, although the notice of the reasons for rejection of this case is abstract or generally stated to a certain extent, it shall be deemed that the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the device pertains is stated to the extent that he can understand the purpose as a whole, so there is no error such as the theory of lawsuit in the original trial decision. All arguments are without merit.

In addition, the court of final appeal, which is a legal court, is not allowed to correct or modify the purport of the claim, and thus, it cannot be accepted without further need to determine the notification of the ground for final appeal of this case and the claim seeking a revocation of the rejection ruling.

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.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)