Allowable to supplement the specification and drawings of the patent application filed by the inventor;

In preparation for Article 15(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 616 of December 31, 1980), Article 15(3) of the same Act is a special provision on Article 15(2) of the same Act, and thus, the patent applicant shall be allowed to supplement the specification and drawings only before the publication of the application pursuant to paragraph (3) of the same Article.

Articles 15(2) and 15(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 616 of December 31, 1980)

규우슈우 다이가렝가 가부시기가이샤 소송대리인 변리사 하상구

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 24 of January 31, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to Article 15(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 616 of December 31, 1980), an applicant may supplement the application, specification, and drawings only before the decision of publication of the application is made, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2). However, according to Paragraph (2) of the same Article, a person who submits documents, samples, or other articles relating to the application, claim, and other procedures to the Korean Intellectual Property Office may supplement them only during the examination, trial, appeal, trial, or retrial. However, in comparison with the above two provisions, the above Article 15(3) does not change the substance of the supplement, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to supplement the application, specification, and drawings only before the publication of the application is made pursuant to Paragraph (3) of the above Article. Thus, considering the reasons and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the amended invention under Article 15(1)15 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Patent Act.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the original decision, the determination of the court below is just in its finding of facts that there are no more than 1980.2.13 kinds of calcium content in the AMM-1, and the summary of the AM-1, which is not less than 1-10% of alcium content, 1-10% of alcium content, 1-10% of alcium content, 1-10% of alcium content, 1-6% of alcium content and 0.6% of alcium content, alcium content and 17% of alcium content, which are not more than 1,000 of alcium content, and which are not more than 1,000 of alcium content, and which are more than 1,000 of alcium content content, and which are more than 0.5% of alcium content content content and alcium content.

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 Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)