1. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal’s decision on October 24, 2016 (No. 2015 won 3073) is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff submitted a translation of the instant invention on September 15, 2010, as indicated in paragraph (2) below below the international patent applicant. However, on September 22, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted to the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014, “the claim 1 through 16 of the instant invention does not clearly and concisely state the invention,” and does not meet Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act, and D10 is 4.7 to 25 m, D90 to 7 and D50 7 to 80 m, and 4.7 m, 10 to 10 m, including an opically active strawing description, are identical to the cited inventions of the instant trial decision and the prior inventions submitted in the instant lawsuit, and thus, the Plaintiff submitted the amendment to the effect that the patent invention of this case can not be submitted by the average 410 m/ 10 of the instant invention.”

However, on April 29, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office decided to refuse a patent for the invention of this case on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the patent application invention of this case is denied by claim 1 through claim 18 by the cited invention 1, and thus, the patent cannot be granted.”

3. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial and a pre-examination order seeking revocation of the aforementioned decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board 2015 Won3073, which added limited claims 1 to claims 3 and deleted claims 3.

However, on July 10, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rejected the patent for the invention claimed in the instant case.