À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

République de Corée

KR003-j

Retour

Patent Court Decision, 2000Heo5438, dated September 21, 2001

The translation does not have any legal effect and the Judiciary of the Republic of Korea does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text.  Please refer to the original decision in Korean for an accurate statement of law.

 

 

PATENT COURT

THE FIRST DEPARTMENT

DECISION

 

 

Case No.:  2000Heo5438 Final Rejection (Patent)

 

Plaintiff:  A

 

Defendant:  Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (“KIPO”)

 

Closure of Hearing:  August 31, 2001

 

Order

 

1.           The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2.           The trial costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

 

Plaintiff’s Demand

 

The decision of the Intellectual Property Tribunal (“IPT”) issued on June 30, 2000 in Case No. 99 Won 1988 shall be cancelled.

 

Opinion

 

1.           Background Facts

 

[Evidence: Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3; Defendant’s Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2]

 

A.           Procedural History in KIPO

 

(1)          The Plaintiff filed an application for an invention titled “Comprehensive Management Method for Household Garbage Recycling” under the Application No. 97-16748 (“Invention”).  On April 30, 1999, however, KIPO issued a final rejection on the grounds that the Invention is not patentable under Article 29(1) of the Korea Patent Act (“KPA”) because the Invention constitutes mental activities such as an agreement between human beings relating to management of administrative tasks, and thus lacks industrial applicability.

 

(2)          Thereupon, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the final rejection with the IPT.  The IPT examined the appeal case as Case No. 99 Won 1988 and on June 30, 2000, rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal for the reasons set forth in Section C below.

 

B.           Summary of the Invention

 

The Invention relates to a comprehensive management method for household garbage recycling to facilitate segregation and collection of garbage.  The claimed scope of the Invention is “a comprehensive management method for household garbage recycling based on statistical data of accumulated information obtained from each of the following steps: a competent authority distributes to each person who discards garbage barcode stickers containing identification of the person and a schedule calendar showing discarded garbage; each of the persons discards garbage by putting accurately segregated garbage in a designated garbage bag according to prescribed rules, wherein a barcode sticker containing the person’s identification is required to be affixed on the garbage bag; a collector processes the discarded garbage by accurately segregating and collecting the garbage according to days of the week, transporting the garbage to a collection place, and sorting the garbage into garbage for recycling and garbage for landfill or incineration; and the barcode affixed on an improperly segregated garbage bag is read and a correction order is issued to the corresponding person who discarded the garbage.”

 

C.           Summary of Grounds of the IPT Decision

 

The Invention relates to a comprehensive management method for household garbage recycling comprising the following four steps: distributing, by a competent authority, barcode stickers containing identification information of a person who discards garbage and a schedule calendar showing discarded garbage to each of the persons who discard garbage (step 1); discarding garbage, by the persons, by affixing the barcode stickers on garbage bags (step 2); segregating and collecting the discarded garbage by a collector (step 3); and during processing of the segregated and collected garbage, reading the barcode affixed on an improperly segregated garbage bag and issuing a correction order to the corresponding person who discarded the garbage (step 4).  In order to achieve the objectives of the Invention, each of the four steps is essential.

 

However, step 4 is a step where the collector issues a corrective order to a person who improperly segregated garbage, and thus cannot be deemed a technical idea that uses laws of nature.  Furthermore, even in view of the overall constitution, the Invention is similar to guidelines for garbage processing that occurs among the competent authority, persons who discard garbage, and collectors and thus cannot be viewed as a technical idea that uses laws of nature.  Therefore, the Invention does not correspond to an invention having industrial applicability.

 

2.           Whether the IPT Decision Is Legally Proper

 

A.           Summary of Plaintiff’s Grounds for Appeal

 

(1)          Step 4 of the Invention, which recites “during processing of the segregated and collected garbage, reading the barcode affixed on an improperly segregated garbage bag and issuing a correction order to the corresponding person who discarded the garbage,” is a creation of a technical idea that uses laws of nature.  Even if it is assumed that step 4 is not a creation of a technical idea, as long as steps 1 to 3 are a creation of technical ideas, the Invention as a whole, including step 4, is obviously deemed a creation of technical ideas.  And even when one of the steps of an invention is not a technical idea, the invention as a whole cannot be deemed invalid.  Therefore, the Invention corresponds to an invention having industrial applicability under the main body of Article 29(1) of the KPA.

 

(2)          The Invention is a business model invention for “a comprehensive management method for household garbage recycling” and requires machinery or computers that can perform the method inherent in each of the steps.  Therefore, the overall constitution of the Invention is a useful creation of technical ideas having industrial applicability in the waste disposal industry.

 

B.           Judgment

 

(1)          Standards for judging an invention under the KPA

 

In order for an invention to be patentable under the KPA, the invention should be first acknowledged to have “industrial applicability” {main body of Article 29(1) of the KPA} and the term “invention” under the KPA means a “highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing laws of nature” (Article 2, Item 1 of the KPA).  Accordingly, if an invention described in a claim constitutes or uses any law other than laws of nature, an artificial decision or agreement, a mathematical formula, or mental activities of a human being, it does not fall within the scope of an invention under the KPA.

 

In addition, whether laws of nature are used within the scope of the invention under the KPA should be determined based on a claim as a whole.  Thus, even if a portion of an invention described in a claim uses laws of nature, if it is determined that the claim as a whole does not use laws of nature, it does not constitute a patentable invention under the KPA.  In contrast, even if a portion of an invention described in a claim does not use laws of nature, if it is determined that the claim as a whole uses laws of nature, the claim constitutes a patentable invention under the KPA.

 

(2)          Whether the Invention falls within the scope of a patentable invention under the KPA

 

(a)          As seen above, the Invention comprises four steps: (i) distributing barcode stickers and a schedule calendar, by a competent authority, to each person who discards garbage (step 1); (ii) discarding garbage, by each of the persons who discard garbage, by affixing the barcode stickers on garbage bags according to prescribed rules (step 2); (iii) collecting and processing the garbage by a collector (step 3); and (iv) if a garbage bag is improperly segregated, issuing a correction order to the corresponding person who discarded the garbage by reading the barcode affixed on the garbage bag (step 4).  Ultimately, the Invention aims to comprehensively manage household garbage using statistical data accumulated from information obtained in the course of each of the steps above.

 

(b)          First, whether each of the steps of the Invention uses laws of nature is reviewed.

 

First, step 1 above includes the means of “barcode stickers” and “schedule calendar.”  As a whole, however, the means are used merely as a tool and distributing the barcode stickers and calendar by the competent authority is in accordance with an artificial decision made based on mental activities of a human being.  Thus, step 1 cannot be deemed as using laws of nature.

 

Next, step 2 above includes the means of “garbage bags.”  As a whole, however, the means are used merely as a tool and the acts of the persons who discard garbage by affixing barcode stickers having their identifications on garbage bags and discarding designated garbage that is accurately segregated in the garbage bags based on the prescribed rules are merely factual acts that are performed based on mental activities of human beings according to pre-established rules.  Thus, step 2 cannot be deemed as using laws of nature.

 

Further, step 3 above merely constitutes factual acts of accurately segregating and collecting discarded garbage by the collector based on his or her own judgment, transporting the garbage to a collection place, and processing the garbage by sorting, which are performed based on mental activities of a human being.  Thus, step 3 cannot be deemed as using laws of nature either.

 

Finally, step 4 includes the means of reading barcodes through a computer, etc.  However, issuing a corrective order to a person who segregated garbage improperly is not an act that is performed by a system connected to computer hardware according to the checked information.  Rather, considered as a whole, the means are merely used as a tool and constitute a human act based on mental activities of a human being in issuing the corrective order to the corresponding person by reading the barcode.  Thus, step 4 cannot be deemed as using laws of nature.

 

(c)          Next, whether the Invention as a whole uses laws of nature is reviewed.

 

The Invention includes the means of barcode stickers, calendar, garbage bags, and hardware and software for reading barcodes using computers, etc.  However, each of the above steps constituting the elements of the Invention does not include any specific means of using a combination of hardware and software above.  Furthermore, each of the steps uses the means only as a tool and thus merely constitutes mental activities of human beings.  In addition, viewed as a whole, the Invention, which is directed to comprehensively managing household garbage based on statistical data accumulated from information obtained in the course of each of the steps above, cannot be practiced per se, but can only be practiced when the applicable laws and regulations are in place, and merely constitutes an artificial decision made pursuant to an agreement among the competent authority, persons who discard garbage, and collector, or a mental judgment or artificial decision made by the competent authority based on the agreement.  Accordingly, the Invention cannot be deemed as using laws of nature.

 

(d)          Whether the Invention falls under a business model invention

 

Generally, a business model invention refers to a novel invention implemented using information technology, and in order for an invention to fall under the business model invention, information processing by software should be specifically performed by using hardware on a computer.  However, each of the steps of the Invention is not processed on-line but off-line, and moreover, a system connecting the software and hardware is not specifically implemented.  Thus, the Invention does not fall within the scope of such general business model invention.

 

C.           Sub-conclusion

 

The Invention is not deemed to be a creation of technical ideas using laws of nature and thus does not fall within the scope of an invention that has industrial applicability.  Accordingly, the Invention is not patentable due to violation of the main body of Article 29(1) of the KPA and the IPT decision reaching the same conclusion is proper.

 

3.           Conclusion

 

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim lacks any merit.

 

 

September 21, 2001

 

Presiding Judge Jin-Seong Lee

Judge Young-Il Yoo

Judge Doo-Hyeong Lee