beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (1) On December 25, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korean Intellectual Property Office”) stated in the following sub-paragraph (b) of the instant patent application invention: (a) the person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).
(2) On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a notice of reasons for rejection on the ground that the invention can easily be made by combining the prior invention 1 or the prior invention 1 and 2, and the nonobviousness thereof is denied. (2) The Plaintiff, upon submitting an amendment on February 25, 2015, corrected the claims 1 of the instant patent application and corrected the claims 7 and 12 to delete the claims.
However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office recognized that the above amendment was lawful on June 24, 2015, and rendered a decision of refusal pursuant to Article 62 of the Patent Act on the ground that the nonobviousness could be easily claimed by a person with ordinary skill in the art in the art in the art in the art in the art in the art in the art in the art in the art in the art in the art in the prior art 1 and 2.
3) On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2015 Won4226). However, on December 30, 2015, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the nonobviousness of the instant claim 1 of the patent application is denied by prior inventions 1, and that where the patent application contains two or more claims, the patent application is rejected by prior inventions 1, and where the patent application contains one of the grounds for rejection, the patent application ought to be rejected in entirety. 【Ground for recognition’s ground for rejection’s absence of dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number, Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, all of the arguments.
B. The title of the invention claimed in this case (A evidence 1-3) 1: the filing date of the saw type 2)/application number: March 7, 2013 (24 February 24, 2011), 10-2013-705892) applicant: Plaintiff 4.