1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 23, 2018 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2016 won296 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the argument that the nonobviousness of the invention in the instant case is denied by all prior inventions described in Paragraph (b) below. (2) On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to the effect that “the claim 1 or 10 shall be corrected, and the claim 11 shall be deleted.” However, on January 29, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to refuse a patent application for the invention in the instant case on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the patent application in the instant case’s prior inventions is still denied by prior inventions.”

3) On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to the effect that “the name of the invention, and the claims 1 through 4 are corrected, and the claims 5 through 10 are deleted,” and filed a request for reexamination. However, on March 22, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a request for reexamination on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the patent application invention of this case as revised as above is still denied by prior inventions” (hereinafter “original decision”).

(4) On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2016 Won2996).

However, on January 23, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the plaintiff's above request for a trial on the ground that the non-obviousness of the claim 1 of the invention of this case revised as mentioned above is denied by the preceding invention, and in particular, if there are grounds for rejection in any one of the claims in the application, the application should be rejected as a whole. Thus, the original decision of the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner dismissed the plaintiff'

B. The Plaintiff’s name of the invention claimed in the instant case (Evidence A 2): The filing date/application number of soil HD: the patent application invention in the instant case, which is a summary of the main drawings of April 29, 2014, / 10-2014-051352, shall be earth and sand created by soil routing the amount on the plate.