1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff filed a patent application for the instant invention described in B (b) and amended the specification, etc. on August 1, 2014. However, on September 30, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner notified the Plaintiff of the submission of his/her opinion on the ground that “the claim 1 of the instant patent application invention is the comparable invention 1 of the instant trial decision on prior invention 1.” 2) The Plaintiff submitted a written notification to the Plaintiff on October 14, 2015, stating that “the nonobviousness is denied by the prior invention 1.”

B. (4) A written amendment was submitted to the effect that the amendment was made as stated in the left-hand column of the table, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to reject the patent application of this case on May 31, 2016 on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the Claim 1 of the instant invention amended as seen earlier is denied by prior inventions 1.” (3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim 1 of the instant patent application invention on June 15, 2016:

B. (4) Amendment, such as the entry on the right side of the table in paragraph (4) (hereinafter “re-examination amendment”).

On June 27, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted an amendment to the purport of the re-examination and filed a request for re-examination. However, on the grounds that (i) the re-examination was in violation of Article 47(2) of the Patent Act and Article 47(3) of the Patent Act regarding the re-examination; (ii) the rejection of the amendment was made on the ground that there was a new ground for rejection following the amendment; and (iii) the Plaintiff filed a request for re-examination on July 14, 2016 with the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2016 Won4137).

However, on October 23, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the amendment by an examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on the following grounds is lawful, and the nonobviousness of the claim 1 of the patent application invention as amended on October 14, 2015 (hereinafter “ Claim 1 invention of this case”) is denied, and thus, the nonobviousness of the invention of this case is denied.