1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On August 21, 2013, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as “the Claim 1 of the patent application invention of this case”) cited the Claim 1 through 10 (hereinafter referred to as “the Claim 1 of this case,” and the remainder of the claims are described in the same method) of the patent application invention of this case as of August 21, 2013, shall have ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”).

(2) On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the grounds for rejection that the patent cannot be granted pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, as the nonobviousness could be easily granted to the invention by prior inventions. (2) The Plaintiff amended the instant patent application invention on October 21, 2013, but the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office did not dismiss the said grounds for rejection that the nonobviousness of the patent application invention was denied by the said amendment.

3) Upon filing a request for reexamination on March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff amended the scope of the claims as stipulated in the following Paragraph (b)(3). On April 29, 2014, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner maintained the said decision of refusal on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for rejection that the nonobviousness of the invention in the instant application was denied was not resolved.

4) On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Intellectual Property Tribunal for an adjudication of rejection (2014 Won4322) seeking revocation of the foregoing decision of rejection. On August 24, 2015, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that the patent application of this case was legitimate on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied by the preceding invention, and that the patent application of this case contains no grounds for rejection even one claim in the case where the patent application contains more than one claim, and that the patent application of this case contains no further examination on the remaining inventions, the patent application of this case must be rejected as a whole.