A trial decision on a utility model shall state the reasons therefor.

A trial decision on a utility model shall state a reasonable ground therefor.

Article 113 of the Patent Act; Article 28 of the Utility Model Act

Applicant

Director of the Patent Bureau

Patent Country

The case shall be destroyed by the original adjudication, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate court of the patent state.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's patent attorney are examined (including the grounds of supplementary appeal by the same attorney-at-law).

Article 28 (2) of the Utility Model Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the trial decision on the device of a utility model to the extent that Article 113 (2) of the Patent Act shall apply mutatis mutandis. The court below found that the trial decision applied for newness of the device at issue on November 30, 1967, which was composed of the rejection ruling rendered on May 15, 1968, was a device related to the structure of damp Games, and that the applicant's application was filed on April 27, 1966 as the applicant's rejection ruling on the device at the same time as the 1967.7.5 of the Utility Model Act, and the applicant's application for newness of the device at the same time as the 196-1-6-1-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-3-4-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-3-1-2-3-2-3-4-2-1-2-3-2-3-4-2-4-1-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu