1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On November 25, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s argument that “the nonobviousness of the patent application invention prior to the filing of the patent application claim, prior to the filing of the patent application, a person with ordinary knowledge belonging to the invention (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention from prior inventions 1 and 2.” On May 27, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted the Plaintiff’s written opinion on January 23, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office still rejected the patent application invention prior to the filing of the patent application claim 1 and 2.”

3) On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the foregoing decision of rejection with the Intellectual Property Tribunal. On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an amendment prior to the examination that revises claims 1 and 11 among the pending inventions. Accordingly, on October 26, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff of the opinion that “Notwithstanding the amendment prior to the examination, the nonobviousness of the preceding claim shall be denied by prior invention 1, 2, and 3.” On April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff presented a written opinion to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2016. However, on August 25, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) that “the prior invention’s prior invention’s prior application’s prior application’s prior application’s prior application’s prior application’s prior application’s prior application’s prior application’s refusal is still denied by either of the grounds for rejection.