1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s title of the invention claimed in the instant case (Evidence 1) 1: B) filing date/application number: C/D3 (amended on November 14, 2015) claims (as amended on November 14, 2015) 【 Claim 1 】 The main contents and drawings of the claim are as follows: (a) the medium power engine consisting of a power source (100), a large number of weights (210,220), a load transmission (30), a load transmission (360), a load transmission (360), a load transmission (40), and a medium power engine claim (2 through 400) omitted; (b) the main contents and drawings of claims 5 through 14 were deleted.

B. (1) On February 17, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) cannot be said to be “an invention that can be used for industrial purposes” under the main sentence of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act, as the Plaintiff’s patent application invention violates the Energy Preservation Rules.

(2) The detailed description of the invention claimed in the instant application is not indicated to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can easily perform, and thus fails to meet the requirements under Article 42(3) of the Patent Act.

On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the purport of the submission of its opinion. 2) The Plaintiff deleted claims 5 through 14, deleted some of the elements of claims 1, and submitted a written opinion and an amendment to express his/her opinion on the grounds for rejection of the violation of Article 42(3) of the Patent Act with regard to industrial applicability and detailed description of the invention. However, on September 1, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office decided to refuse patent registration on the ground that “Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s amendment, claims 1 through 4 of the invention in the instant case cannot be deemed an invention having industrial applicability, and the detailed description of the invention violates the requirements of Article 42(3) of the Patent Act, and thus cannot obtain a patent.”

3. The plaintiff on March 2015.