1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The name of the patent application invention (Evidence 2) 1: C2) filing date/application number: D/E3: The plaintiffs 4) claims and major drawings: the same shall apply to [attached Form].

B. 1) The Plaintiffs filed an application for the instant patent application with D. 2) The examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the submission of the following opinions on December 14, 2012. A) the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 8197, Jan. 3, 2007) (amended by Act No. 8197, Jan. 3, 2007).

(a) The same shall apply;

) Violation of Article 42(3): A person who has ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) is not subject to the detailed description of the invention, although the detailed description of the invention is characterized by the technical feature of the energy response radioactive structure, there is no detailed technical means that energy is emitted from the structure, and there is no objective data that indicates the quantity of energy emitted therefrom.

(B) Violation of Article 42(4)2 of the former Patent Act: Claim Nos. 5 through 8 of the claim(s) of this case is inconsistent with the cited claim(s) and the end of the claim(s) of this case.

3) On August 5, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of rejection as to the invention in the instant case on the ground that the grounds for reversal of the grounds for rejection of the notification of submission of the foregoing opinion cannot be found. 4) On the ground that the Plaintiffs’ revocation request (2013 Won7400) against the said decision of rejection, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board did not meet the requirements under Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act, and on April 30, 2014, the 5 or 8 inventions in the instant case rejected the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that they failed to meet the requirements under Article 42(4)2 of the former Patent Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and issues

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1.