(a) The case holding that the patent cannot be granted on the ground that the invention applied for the method of manufacturing the primary health foods might cause harm to the public health by mixing the protein powder with the stein powder and stein powder powder with the stein powder powder;

B. Whether it can be determined that the invention in question is unlikely to harm the general public’s health on the sole basis of the fact that a specific person had no harm as a result of taking the product of the invention in question (negative)

C. Whether an invention is likely to harm public health or not in a patent proceeding (affirmative)

(a) The case holding that the patent cannot be granted pursuant to Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) on the ground that the invention in question is likely to harm public health by mixing the protegy powder with the protegy powder and beegy powder powder (30 to 50% of total weight).

B. It cannot be readily concluded that the invention in question is unlikely to harm the general public’s health on the sole basis of the fact that there was no risk as a result of taking the product of the invention in question by a specific person.

C. In light of Article 4 subparag. 3 of the former Patent Act and Article 78(1) subparag. 1 of the former Patent Act, when a patent application is likely to harm public health, a rejection ruling should be rendered. Thus, whether an invention is likely to harm public health should be examined in patent procedures. This does not merely deal with the relevant product permission regulations, such as the Food Sanitation Act, in the implementation stage of the invention.

(a)(c) Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990) / (c) Article 82 subparagraph 1 of the same Act;

Patent Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 89Na1063 Dated December 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the main invention concerns the manufacturing method of the original invention and its summary concerns the manufacturing method of food made by mixing its own ingredients such as the steel powder and beer powder in the fore part and beer part, and the steel powder accounts for 30 to 50% of the total weight. The steel powder necessary for the function of the human body is ordinarily included in food, and it is not possible to 16mg of the adult and infant 6mg of the animal and the 19m of the 19m of the 9m of the 9m of the 9m of the 9m of the 4m of the 9m of the 9m of the 4m of the 9m of the 4m of the 5m of the 5m of the 1m of the 5m of the 5m of the 1m of the 5m of the 5m of the 1m of the 5m of the 1m of the 5m of the 1mar of the 6. The 1m of the 5m of the m of the mar.

2. In theory, the applicant received treatment at a hospital for 10 years from 1946 to 10 years from the 1946, with no efficacy test, and as a result, the medical examination was conducted in October 1982 after the 1958 that the applicant's health was extremely favorable as a result of the medical examination conducted in October 1982. However, as long as a specific person, such as the theory of the lawsuit, did not pose any danger or harm to the public health of the original invention, it cannot be readily concluded that the original invention does not cause harm to the public health solely because the applicant did not present a safety test mark. Accordingly, the original trial decision is acceptable and it cannot be said that the applicant did not present any other safety test mark.

3. Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the former Patent Act provides that an invention which is likely to harm public health shall not be patentable, and Article 82 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that a patent application shall be rejected if it falls under any of the causes under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, and thus, unlike the theory of the lawsuit that a patent application should be rejected, if the patent application is likely to harm public health, the patent application should be rejected only. Therefore, whether the invention is likely to harm public health should be examined in the patent procedure, and it should not be dealt only with in the relevant product permission law such as the Food Sanitation Act, etc. In practice of the invention, the original trial decision is just and there is no possibility that the original invention would harm public health due to its stability and dosage, and there is no error in the decision of rejection under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the former Patent Act.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)