The refusal and the appeal
On 29 January 2026, Korea’s Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in 2022Hu11190, upholding the Patent Court’s judgment of 24 November 2022 in 2022Heo2127. The application concerned systems and methods for controlling plasma density. Inventive step had been rejected using references 1 and 2, and the dispute reached court after the refusal appeal was dismissed.
The right to respond remains central
An applicant must receive notice of the refusal ground and an opportunity to respond. A materially different ground cannot first be introduced in the appeal or judicial-review proceedings without that opportunity. However, a reason that merely supplements an already notified ground without changing its principal purport can support the court’s review. “New document” and “new refusal ground” are therefore not interchangeable.
The different roles of the two documents
Exhibit Eul No. 8 was used to establish common general knowledge in the relevant field at the filing date and to supplement reference 2. It did not replace the notified reference with a new attack. Japanese publication JP2004-241792 was background art mentioned in reference 1 and helped explain that reference; it was not submitted as an independent basis for denying inventive step. On those facts, considering the documents did not breach the applicant’s procedural rights.
Inventive step still requires a reasoned bridge
The analysis must identify the prior art, the differences from the claimed invention and the skilled person’s knowledge at filing, then explain why those differences could readily be overcome. Combining references requires a teaching or motivation, or support in contemporary technical knowledge, the field’s ordinary problems, trends or industry needs. The mere existence of several documents is insufficient.
One deficient claim and the application as a whole
Claim 1 was found readily derivable from reference 1 alone or from references 1 and 2 together. Under the Korean rule applied in the judgment, a refusal ground affecting any one claim prevents grant of the application as it stands. This does not establish that every other claim was independently analysed and found obvious. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the refusal stood.
Classify the role of evidence before responding
Ask whether a document explains background art, proves common knowledge at the relevant date, or introduces the essential missing feature for a different rejection. A textbook explaining a sensor’s operation and an unrelated patent supplying a new control feature illustrate the distinction, but neither label determines admissibility automatically. Prepare technical evidence by claim, consider available amendments and procedural deadlines, and distinguish this case from 2025Heo10293, where a changed comparison required a renewed opportunity to respond.
Original figure labels and forms are preserved; the surrounding text explains their meaning.
Read the related case commentary