The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 201, the Plaintiff (around October 21, 201) following the instant trial decision

B. (2) As described in paragraph (2), an invention with the title “the method and device for the specification of semiconductor wafers” (hereinafter “instant patent application invention”).

On August 25, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office filed an application with the Plaintiff on August 25, 2015, stating that “(i) a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary engineer”) can easily make an invention by prior inventions described in Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, and (ii) a patent cannot be granted pursuant to Article 42(4)2 of the Patent Act, because the entire claim contains unclear expressions, and thus, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to amend the specification, etc. of the instant invention on October 22, 2015, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office failed to resolve the grounds for rejection on January 19, 2016.”

3. On April 14, 2016, a petition filed by the Intellectual Property Tribunal for a trial on an appeal of rejection seeking revocation of the said decision of rejection under the Patent Tribunal No. 2016 Won2203, and the specification, etc. of the instant patent application invention is as follows.

B. As described in paragraph 3, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office maintained the said decision of rejection on May 30, 2016, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s re-examination was conducted on the basis of the specifications amended on April 14, 2016 and there is no matter to reverse the grounds for the decision of rejection even if re-examination was conducted.” 4) The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board on August 10, 2017, on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the claim 1 of the instant invention is denied by prior inventions 1 or 1 and 2 as described in paragraph (c) below, and without need to further examine the remaining claims, the patent application of the instant invention ought to be entirely rejected.”