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. On October 29, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the grounds for rejection, and notified the Plaintiff of the submission of the opinion on December 22, 2015, that “The invention of this case can be easily claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) from the preceding invention 1 and 2, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.” However, on April 28, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted the written opinion by the Plaintiff on December 22, 2015. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the application of this case on the same ground as the written notice of submission of the above opinion.
3) On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination of the amendment to the specification, etc. of the instant invention as described in the following Paragraph B. The examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, following a reexamination on April 7, 2016, rejected the instant application pursuant to Article 62 of the Patent Act for the same reason as described in the foregoing Paragraph (1).
4) On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial on an appeal against a decision of refusal seeking the revocation of the said decision of refusal. However, on September 1, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s above request for a trial on the ground that “the invention of this case can be easily derived from prior inventions 1 and 2 disclosed by ordinary technicians prior to the filing date of the application, so the nonobviousness is denied, and thus the patent cannot be granted pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act is not granted.” (B) The name of the invention of this case (in accordance with evidence A No. 4, the specification amended as of March 8, 2016) / the filing date of the lock display device of Hands: the filing date of the application date on December 18, 2014, and the application number of claims No. 10-201489, Oct. 1, 2014>