[1] The case holding that the detailed description of the invention for which the name "means of using discharged water from a sewage treatment plant for the development of hydroelectric power" is in violation of the specification requirements under Article 42 (3) of the Patent Act

[2] The scope of the litigation seeking revocation of the adjudication

[1] The case holding that the detailed description of the invention for which the name "means of using discharged water from a sewage treatment plant for the development of hydroelectric power" is in violation of the specification requirements under Article 42 (3) of the Patent Act

[2] Even if the Korean Intellectual Property Office is not determined by the trial decision at the litigation stage to revoke a trial decision rejecting a request for rejection of rejection ruling, it may assert and prove the grounds for legitimate conclusion of the trial decision, unless the grounds for rejection ruling and other new grounds for rejection are applicable. The court of a lawsuit to revoke a trial decision may render a judgment based on the trial decision without restriction, unless there are special circumstances to deem otherwise.

[1] Article 42(3) of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 42(3), 47, and 186 of the Patent Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu1290 decided Jun. 25, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2617)

Saman Construction Technology Corporation and one other

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 200Heo5056 delivered on April 20, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

The lower court determined that, on June 23, 1999, the amendment, including the specification, etc. of the instant patent application invention, stating the purpose of the invention that “the method of using sewage treatment plant water for the development of hydrogen power” is “the method of using sewage treatment plant water,” and that the purpose of the invention that seeks to recover and recycle wastes from wastewater and sewage treatment plant to contribute to the recycling of resources and the supply and demand of electricity, and that the water discharged from sewage treatment plant can be used in an indefinite manner, and that the construction cost can be reduced in a dam construction can be maintained much more favorable than the case of assistance generation. However, the lower court determined that the technical composition of the invention in question to achieve the purpose of the invention merely stated a small number of power generation principles, as well as the detailed description, such as the number of sewage treatment plant discharged at the sewage treatment plant and the number of water used, the type and output of the tea and the annual development quantity, and that the person, as described in the detailed description of the technical development of the invention in question, did not meet the technical development requirements of the invention in question.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and they are not erroneous as pointed out in the ground of appeal No. 1.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

The court below held that the decision of this case was justified in its conclusion, since the decision of this case was an amendment to the summary of June 23, 1999 and whether there was a reason for lack of specification as a ground for rejection of the initial patent application, instead of an invention as stated in the above amendment, as stated in the first ground for rejection. However, since there was a ground for rejection as stated in the first ground for rejection as stated in the above amendment and the KIPO examiner had already rendered a rejection ruling as to the patent application of this case on the ground that it had already been made by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Even if the Korean Intellectual Property Office did not judge at the trial decision at the stage of litigation for revocation of a trial decision rejecting a request for rejection of rejection ruling, it is sufficient to conclude that the conclusion of the trial decision has been justifiable, unless it falls under the grounds for rejection ruling and the new grounds for rejection, and the court of litigation for revocation of the trial decision can make the basis of the trial decision without restriction, and the court of litigation for revocation of the trial decision can make the basis of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu1290, Jun. 25, 2002). According to the records, it is sufficient to conclude that the court of the court below has justified the conclusion of the trial decision maintaining the rejection ruling of this case as the defendant has a ground for rejection of specification in the correction dated June 23, 199, since the defendant's ground for rejection by the defendant was originally the ground for rejection ruling of the original rejection ruling and submitted a written opinion on it while filing a request for a trial for rejection of rejection ruling of the rejection ruling of this case, and therefore, it is just and there is no violation

3. All of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)