# Earlier applications and image generation in an AR patent The Korean Patent Court assessed substantial identity with an earlier-filed, later-published application, rather than inventive step, in case 2024Heo12692. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1868 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Earlier applications and image generation in an AR patent The Korean Patent Court assessed substantial identity with an earlier-filed, later-published application, rather than inventive step, in case 2024Heo12692. Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.23 published IPLEX 7 min read Which claim was challenged On January 16, 2025, Korea’s Patent Court dismissed the action challenging invalidation of claim 28 of patent 10-1363559, concerning augmented reality using additional data. The patent was filed July 23, 2010 and registered February 10, 2014. The cited application was filed September 24, 2009 but published March 30, 2011, after the patent’s filing. Earlier filing is a distinct test Article 29(3) of the Korean Patent Act can apply to an invention disclosed in the original specification or drawings of an earlier application published later. The issue is identity, including substantial identity, not whether multiple references make a modification obvious. A minor addition, omission or substitution of conventional technology may preserve identity if it produces no new effect. Ease of modification alone does not resolve that test. Patent Figure 8b: representative image 801 and additional images 810, 820 and 830 What the AR method did Claim 28 obtains first data about an object and different second data, creates a representative image and an additional image, and combines them; comparison and analysis inform the additional image. A café logo with Wi-Fi or charging icons was a specification example, not a verified commercial service. The earlier disclosure displayed points of interest on a camera image and calculated travel distance and time using location information. The meaning of generating an image The specification allowed extraction of a received logo or selection of a stored or searched image. The court did not confine generation to drawing something new. Displaying an image associated with a selected point of interest performed substantially the same function. Likewise, replacing travel-time information with a simple icon was a conventional change without a new effect. The joint display entailed combining information even without that exact verb. Display comparison: patent Figure 8b and earlier invention Figure 5 Why claim 28 remained invalid The claim and specification did not exclude text images; the earlier display used fonts, colors, rectangles and building graphics. The identified differences were minor and produced no new effect, so the earlier-filing ground was upheld. A separate inventive-step argument based on another reference did not form the decision’s basis. The ruling addressed claim 28 only, not every claim, a fresh application refusal or product infringement. Describe operations and effects concretely Terms such as generate, analyze and combine should be supported by the actual inputs, processing and technical results. When an operation differs from selecting existing information, explain the means and consequence consistently in the claims and description. Prior-art review should check filing and publication dates separately, including the original disclosure of earlier applications that became public later. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the source material. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Patents & utility models ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE Which claim was challenged Earlier filing is a distinct test What the AR method did The meaning of generating an image Why claim 28 remained invalid Describe operations and effects concretely TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Non-use cancellation and health functional foods ↗ Older DFlare: widening the information path to a speculative drafter ↗ Related insights Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.29 Withdrawing a patent application during an appeal against refusal Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10510 explains why withdrawing an application removed the legal interest in challenging the decision upholding its refusal. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.28 Saxophone pad repairs: process wording and inventive step A Korean judgment compares a product-by-process claim with a repair manual and video, focusing on the finished pad structure. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.27 Humidity ranges and inventive step in semiconductor processing A Korean patent judgment examines metal-containing resists, numerical humidity limits and the technical reasons for combining prior art. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/patent - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1868 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/patent#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1868#article-1868-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1868#article-1868-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1868#article-1868-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1868#article-1868-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1868#article-1868-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1868#article-1868-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1869 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/dflare-block-diffusion-drafting - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882