거절결정(특)
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 25, 2016 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Basic facts
가. 이 사건 심결의 경위 1) 원고는 2014. 4. 7. ‘인쇄회로기판의 휨 개선 방법’이라는 명칭으로 이 사건 출원발명에 대한 특허를 출원하였다. 2) 특허청 심사관은 2014. 12. 15. 원고에게 『이 사건 출원발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다
) The claim 1 to 3 of the instant patent application invention notified the grounds for rejection that: (a) the claim 4 to 8; and (b) the claim 1 to 11; and (c) the prior invention 1 and 2, claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 can easily be claimed by prior inventions 1 to 3; and (b) the inventive step shall be denied pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act; and (c) the Plaintiff submitted an amendment to delete the claim 8 to 13 on February 16, 2015.
3) On June 18, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office shall deny the nonobviousness of each of the claims 1 through 3 in accordance with the preceding invention 1, and the claims 4 through 7 in accordance with the combinations 1 and 2 in accordance with the preceding invention 1.
4) On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a re-examination amendment and written opinion, but the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner again made a decision of rejection on August 18, 2015 on the ground that the initial ground for rejection was not resolved.
5) On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board for a trial seeking revocation of the foregoing decision of refusal, and the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board shall deliberate on the petition in the case of 2015 Won5386, and on July 25, 2016, “The nonobviousness of the claim 1 among the inventions claimed in the instant application is denied by prior inventions 1, and the patent application contains two or more claims, if any ground for rejection exists in the patent application, the application shall be rejected entirely.
“The instant trial decision was rendered to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the grounds of the foregoing. B. The name of the Plaintiff’s invention in the instant case (amended on July 16, 2015) invention: