Where notification of the reason for refusal is required in an appeal trial and the purport of Articles 82(2) and 134 of the Patent Act;

The purpose of Articles 82(2) and 134 of the Patent Act, which provide for the notification of the grounds for rejection in order to refuse a patent application, refers to the highly advanced creation of a new technical doctor using the law of nature, and thus, whether an invention is a patentable invention. Therefore, in determining whether an invention constitutes an invention eligible for a patent, the examiner requires high level of expertise, and it is not possible to have such knowledge with the examiner, so prevention of error, prevention of the applicant's explanation, and correction of any error that is likely to be caused in the seafarer system, and immediately, without giving the applicant an opportunity to correct any error that may be easily caused in the applicant's explanation and seafarer system, the decision of rejection is excessively harsh to the applicant. Thus, the decision of rejection must be made at least in accordance with the reasons for rejection in the notice of the reasons for rejection. In a trial on a complaint, unless the grounds for rejection

Articles 82 and 134 of the Patent Act

Boli Lari L&C (Law Firm Dog, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 269 decided on June 30, 1988 by the Appeal Tribunal in 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below rejected the original invention of this case as "improvement of the original invention of this case". First, the structural formula (a) is described in Paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of the scope of the patent claim in paragraph (1) of this Article in response to structural formula NHR R R R formula, and structural formula (b) is contained in Section 1 of this Article in response to the structural formula, but the structural formula (a) is not included in Section 5 of the specification, as described in the structural formula (b) instead of the structural formula (b) where the chemical formula (a) is derived, and it is not necessary to respond to the structural formula of the applicant in lieu of the structural formula as described in Section 11 of the specification, and it is not necessary to understand the technical formula of the invention of this case in lieu of the structural formula (a) where the structural formula is obtained and the structural formula is not known to the applicant in addition to the structural formula (b) the structural formula of the invention of this case.

2. Article 82(2) of the Patent Act provides that an examiner shall notify the applicant of the ground for rejection and give him an opportunity to submit a written opinion within a specified period when he/she intends to find that a patent application has a ground for rejection falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1) of this Article, and Article 134 of the Patent Act provides that an examiner shall notify the applicant of the ground for rejection and give him/her an opportunity to submit a written opinion. In an appeal against a rejection ruling, Article 82 of the Patent Act provides that where an examiner intends to refuse a patent application because the grounds for rejection and other grounds for rejection are found in an appeal against a rejection ruling, the provisions of Article 82 of the Patent Act shall apply mutatis mutandis. The purport of each of the above provisions is that an invention subject to a patent refers to the creation of a new technical idea using the law of nature, so it requires a high level of expertise in determining whether the invention is eligible for a patent, and thus, the examiner cannot have any such knowledge nor shall the applicant have any opportunity to correct any error easily caused in the applicant's explanation and seafarer system immediately.

기록에 의하면, 초심은 출원인에게 거절이유통지를 하면서 그 이유로서, 첫째로 본원 특허청구 범위 제1항에 청구한 화합물은 아래 즉 R¹이 의 사이클로 알킬, R²와 R³가 알키닐, R⁴가 할틀알콕시인 경우는 발명의 상세한 설명의 내용에서 구체적으로 실시된 내용보다 광범위하여 발명의 상세한 설명의 내용에 의해 지지될 수 없는 내용이고, 둘째로 본원 특허청구의 범위 제1항에 있어 X가 O인 경우와 S인 경우는 그 제법이 각각 다른 별개의 발명으로 인정되는 바, 본원은 독립항이 발명의 수에 따라 적절한 수로 기재되어 있지 않다고 인정되며, 세째로 특허청구 범위 제4항은 다수 종속항을 인용한 다수종속항이라는 것이었고 거절사정 이유도 같은 내용이었으며 원심결 이유는 위와 같이 발명의 상세한 설명에는 CN기의 화합물로 기재되어 있는데, 특허청구의 범위에는 그 해당 화합물이 (할로겐)기의 화합물로 되어 있어서 특허청구의 범위는 발명의 상세한 설명에 의하여 지지되지 아니하고, 또 기술적으로 뒷받침되지 아니한다 하여 초심결을 유지하고 있으므로 이에 의하면, 초심 거절사정 이유와 원심결 이유의 요지는 특허청구 범위의 기재내용이 발명의 상세한 설명에 의하여 기술적으로 뒷받침되지 아니하거나 또는 기술적으로 이해되지 아니한다는 것이어서 양자는 그 주지에 있어서 서로 부합하며 항고심이 다른 거절이유를 발견하였다고 할 수 없으니 원심결의 조치는 정당하고 지적하는 바와 같은 거절이유를 통지하지 아니한 위법이 있다 할 수 없으므로 논지는 이유없다.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)