(a) The example in which the patent application invention on the method to improve the habitability of the non-tin has been rejected;

B. Criteria for determining inventive step of the application under Article 6(2) of the Patent Act

A. The cited invention publicly known prior to the application of this source contains an expression that it enhances the habitability of natural or synthetic rocks, i.e., improving the moisture, and that it enhances the stability of the hydrogeneous deposit, but the technical purpose of the invention itself is to create a stable title of the invention by causing the flexibility in the creation of a hydrogeneous compound. The technical purpose of the invention itself is to create a stable title of the invention, which is the same as the two, and its constituent substance is the same kind of substance, and is different in the quantity of use, but it is merely a difference in the degree that it depends on the level of stability desired, so the original invention can easily be formed with the contents of the quoted invention, and if it is recognized that the content is within the same scope, the invention of this case can not be patented by deeming that the invention of this case is easy from the quoted invention.

B. The meaning of Article 6(2) of the Patent Act is that even if the invention claimed in the patent application is a new technology that can be used for industrial purposes, if it is a creation date that can easily be claimed from the existing technology, it shall be deemed to lack inventive step and not to grant a patent. The existence of such inventive step shall be determined by virtue of the non-obviousness when the effects of the applied technology have been remarkably improved compared to those of the prior art.

Article 6(2) of the Patent Act

헨켈코만디트 겟셋샤후트 아우프 악틴 소송대리인 변리사 남상석 외 1인

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

A person shall be appointed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3

The court below's finding that the current content of the invention is 0 per cent of the 10th fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoralsium fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor fluoral fluor fluor fluoral fluoral fluor fluor fluor fluoral fluor fluor fluor fluor flus f.

Thus, according to the Patent Act, if an invention claimed in a patent application falls under the public domain or can easily be claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, a patent shall not be granted. Therefore, the court below's decision that maintained the rejection of the patent application in this case for this reason is justifiable. Thus, the arguments are without merit since it is merely to criticize the determination of facts by the court below.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

Article 6 (2) of the Patent Act provides that if an invention claimed in a patent application can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, by means of an invention described in the publicly known invention or the distribution publication, the patent shall not be granted, even if it is a new technology that can be easily made from the existing technology, the patent shall be deemed to lack inventive step when it is a creation that can be easily made from the existing technology, and the patent shall not be granted. The existence of such inventive step is the same as a theory of claim. However, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on inventive step in this case in which there is no material to acknowledge that the effects of the patent application in the single record are more inventive than those of the technical action effect of the cited invention, which is the prior art, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the Supreme Court precedents on this point, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no reason to criticize the court below's appeal.

3. Therefore, all of the grounds of appeal are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)