2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The decision of refusal and the decision of this case 1) The plaintiff filed a patent application with the defendant as to the invention "the roof of the stadium roof installed in the field of the field, such as the field room, the axis room, the swimming pool, the swimming pool, the ship's internship, the tennis, the tennis, the sports center, the performance hall, the public performance place, the park, and the various cultural and artistic spaces (hereinafter referred to as "spak-gu") with the application number C on the ground of the application number B (hereinafter referred to as "the invention of this case").

(2) On January 9, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the grounds for rejection, such as “The claim 1, 2, and 4 of the invention in question may be easily derived from the prior inventions disclosed before the filing date of the application, by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”), and notified the Plaintiff of the submission of his opinion.”

3) On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff revised claims 1 and 2 of the instant patent application invention. However, on March 4, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to reject the instant patent application pursuant to Article 62 of the Patent Act, on the ground that “the instant patent application invention, even if the Plaintiff’s amendment was made, could be easily derived from the prior invention disclosed by a person having ordinary skill prior to the filing date, and thus, cannot obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.”

4) A request for reexamination was made while submitting an amendment to correct as described in paragraph (1). However, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner, following a reexamination on September 3, 2014, rendered a decision to reject the instant application in accordance with Article 62 of the Patent Act for the same reason as described in paragraph (3).

5 On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board(2014 Won5876) seeking revocation of the said decision of refusal.