The case where it is illegal because the applicant does not have an opportunity to submit a written opinion in the appeal trial even though the reason for the original rejection and other grounds for rejection are discovered.

According to Articles 134 and 82 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 3325 of Dec. 31, 1980), where the grounds for rejection and other grounds for rejection are discovered in an appeal trial, the original adjudication that did not follow the same procedures is unlawful even though the applicant notified the applicant of the grounds for rejection and provided the applicant with an opportunity to submit his/her written opinion within a specified period.

Articles 134 and 82 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 3325 of Dec. 31, 1980)

Supreme Court Decision 88Hu950 Decided August 8, 1989

waston Metetcom, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 83 of Apr. 19, 1988 (87 refunded31) Decision 709

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Articles 134 and 82 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 3325 of Dec. 31, 1980), where the appellate trial finds grounds for rejection different from those of other grounds for rejection, the appellate trial provides that the applicant shall be notified of the grounds for rejection and shall be given an opportunity to submit a written opinion within a specified period. According to the records, the reason for rejection of the patent application of this case in the appellate trial of this case shall be that the original invention is unclear in its detailed composition and action of a circuit to be established in connection with other elements selected from the original subject subject subject to the patent application of this case, and it shall be clearly stated that the original decision is not clear that the main subject to the patent application of this case has a specific function such as tracking, verifying, warning, and calling the computer device, and the light dives and dives from each multiple phone are not clearly indicated in the scope of the grounds for rejection, and it shall not be clearly indicated that the scope of the patent application of this case has a different function from the original subject to the appeal.

Therefore, even though the court below should have given the patent applicant of this case an opportunity to submit a written opinion in accordance with the above provision of the Patent Act, even if examining the record, it is not possible to find out a trace of going through the above procedure in the court below. Thus, the original decision in violation of the above provision is illegal. Therefore, the argument that points this out is justified.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)