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

A. On November 20, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the instant decision regarding the patent application, and on November 20, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office presented the Plaintiff’s opinion on the ground that “the claim 1 through 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the instant invention constitutes Article 29(1)2 of the Patent Act, which is the same as the prior invention. Before the filing of the patent application for the instant invention, a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily distinguish from the prior invention, and thus, it constitutes Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, and Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act, which includes expenses not included in the patent application, and thus falls under Article 42(4)4 through 15 of the Patent Act.” The Plaintiff still presented a written opinion on the amendment of the instant invention to the Korean Intellectual Property Office on March 3, 2014.

3) On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On the same day, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment, such as the specification of the pre-determination of examination that deleted claims 10 and 13. (4) On November 12, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the results of the examination of the pre-determination application that maintained the original decision of refusal on the ground that even if re-examination was conducted based on the foregoing amended specification, it cannot find any matter that could reverse the grounds for the decision

5. After examining the above request for adjudication as 2014 Won611, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered on May 28, 2015, since the claim 1 among the inventions claimed in this case could easily be derived by a person with ordinary skills by prior inventions, the nonobviousness of the patent application is denied.