Extent of description of patent application

According to Article 8 (2) and (3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990), the specification of a patent application is a person who has an ordinary level of technological understanding in the technical field to which the invention related to the application pertains, that is, an average technician can understand the invention accurately and accurately without adding special knowledge by considering the invention as the technical level at the time of application based on the description of the specification.

Articles 8(2) and (3) (see current Article 42(2) and (3)) and 82(1)1 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990);

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Patom transfer - Batlat- Patent Attorney Nam-Jatn et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office shall render a ruling on February 28, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal by the applicant.

Article 8 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that "the patent application shall be accompanied by the name of the invention 1...., the brief description of the drawings 2., the detailed description of the invention 3., and the specification and necessary drawings 4." The detailed description of the invention in paragraph (2) 3 shall state the purpose, composition, effect and effect of the invention to the extent that it can be easily implemented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, i.e., a person with ordinary technological understanding ability in the art to which the invention pertains, the average technician can understand the invention accurately without considering special knowledge at the time of the application based on the specification and at the same time, and if the specification of the patent application does not meet the above requirements, it shall be deemed that there is a ground for refusal under Article 8 (1) 1 of the former Patent Act.

It can be seen that the time is needed to read or enter the information and list of the Compact disc in the form of spact disc, in which the information or list of the spact disc is read by the spam beam of the spact disc if all the applications are inserted in the spact disc, which is presented by the applicant’s written opinion, written amendment, written appeal or written amendment, or written appeal or amendment, and the original patent application: (a) the spact disc is not carried out by the spact disc; (b) the spact disc is not carried out in a way that does not specify the purpose or list of the spact disc; (c) the spact disc is not carried out in any way in which the spact disc is not carried out by any way; (d) how the spactline searches and all the information of the group are not carried out by any means, and (e) how the spactline is not carried out in a way that can be converted into or spacted into a large range.

In the above purport, although the court below's decision that rejected the registration of the original application was somewhat insufficient, it is just in its reasoning, and there is no error of law such as incomplete hearing or misunderstanding of legal principles as asserted by the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)