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 29(2) of the Patent Act: An inventive step part may be easily claimed by a person with ordinary skill from comparable inventions (No. 10-2000-12817, No. 10-1999-24187, the Patent Act). Thus, a person with ordinary skill may not obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.

3) On August 5, 2013, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rendered a decision of refusal as to the invention in the instant case on the ground that it was not possible to discover matters that could not reverse the grounds for rejection of the notification of submission of the above opinion. 4) On May 9, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s decision of rejection on the ground that the decision of refusal as to the invention in the instant case was legitimate on the ground that the Plaintiff’s decision of rejection was not satisfied the requirements under Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act, since the detailed description of the invention in the instant case did not meet the requirements under Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act.

[Ground of recognition] A.