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

가. 이 사건 출원발명 (1) 명칭 : B (2) 출원일 /출원번호 : C/ D (3) 출원인 : 원고 (4) 특허청구범위(2012. 5. 2. 자 보정서에 기한 것이다) 【청구항 1】풍속(風速) 발전(發電) 장치(裝置) 청구항 1에서의 (종속항) 2 【청구항 2】모든 동력추진체 전진(前進) 추진 시 그의 속력에 의한 그때 순간적이며 연속적으로 동체에 스치는 풍속을 이용 동력 체에 장착한 발전기의 축에 부착된 바람개비를 돌리고 그에 의하여 발전기에서 전력을 생산 배터리에 충전시키게 되는 장치(裝置) 그 세트(set) 일체 (5) 발명의 상세한 설명 및 도면 중 주요 기재 : [별지 1] 기재와 같다.

B. The term “electric vehicles using wind power generation devices” inserted in No. 10-2007-0038588 on April 11, 2007, as the cited Invention (Evidence No. 2) is related to “electric vehicles using wind power generation devices,” and the main contents and drawings thereof are as shown in [Attachment 2].

C. (1) The Plaintiff filed a patent application for the instant patent application with the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

(2) On May 2, 2011, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the submission of the opinion that “the claim 1 and 2 violated the provisions of the No. 1 and the No. 2, and Article 42(3) of the Patent Act, and the person having ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention in the instant application pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention from the cited inventions publicly known prior to the filing of the application,” and the decision of rejection was made on April 18, 2012 on the same ground as the foregoing reasons for rejection.

(3) On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination on May 2, 2013. At the same time, the Plaintiff amended the scope of the patent application of the instant invention as described in the said scope of patent application, but the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner stated that the instant patent application invention as amended on August 17, 2012 is denied as it is possible for a person with ordinary skills to easily make an invention based on comparable inventions.