1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office issued a notice of the submission of the opinion to the effect that the preceding claim of the patent application invention of this case falls under the lack of specification, and that the inventive step is denied by the preceding invention of this case (Evidence A3). (2) On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted the amendment and written opinion on October 27, 2014. However, on February 27, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the patent application of this case on the ground that “the preceding claim of the patent application invention of this case is still denied by the preceding invention.”

3) On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to delete claims 2, 7, 11, 17, and 19, and filed a request for reexamination (hereinafter “original decision”) and filed a request for reexamination. However, on April 30, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a request for reexamination on the ground that “the nonobviousness of claims 1, 3 through 6, 8 through 10, 12 through 16, 18, and 20 among the pending inventions in the instant case as revised as above is still denied by prior inventions” (hereinafter “original decision”).

(4) On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2015 Won479.

However, on August 30, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s above request for a trial on the ground that the nonobviousness of the Claim 1 of the instant patent application (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) was denied by prior inventions, and that if there is a ground for rejection in a patent application any one of the claims, the patent application should be rejected as a whole. Therefore, the original decision of the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the ground that it is legitimate.

B. At the time of admitting the specification of the patent application invention of this case (No. 2, No. 1) by the Plaintiff, the certificate No. 1 shall be quoted.

Invention name: Information processing device, server-Clata system, and