2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On January 8, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the submission of the Plaintiff’s patent application of the Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s submission of the statement of opinion, “The nonobviousness is denied as it is possible for a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the patent application invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) to easily make an invention from the preceding invention 1 and 2, and thus, a patent shall not be granted pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.” (2) On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted the amendment and written opinion, such as the amendment to only the creation cost of the patent application claim 1 among the patent applications in the instant case, and deletion of the patent claim 2.

However, on September 23, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner made a decision of refusal on the ground that "no matter concerning the denial of inventive step among the grounds for rejection was resolved."

3) On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the foregoing decision with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment to the examination pre-determination with the content of amending claims 1, 3, and 12 among the pending inventions. On December 16, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff on December 16, 2015 that he/she would maintain the original decision because the nonobviousness of claims 1 of the pending invention is denied by prior inventions 2. 4) The Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated the instant appeal with the number of KRW 2015 won6352. On February 28, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the instant appeal on the ground that “A claim 1 of the pending invention is denied by prior inventions 2, and, even if there exists any ground for rejection in a patent application, the patent application must be rejected as a whole if it is a ground for rejection.”

B. The name of the invention claimed in this case (Evidence A 2 and 11): The date of international filing (the date of priority) and the date of domestic translation.