1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The name of the invention claimed in this case (No. 1 evidence No. 1, No. 3) 1: The name of the invention claimed in this case: the m-D unit operation device 2: the international filing date/application number: October 14, 2008 / No. 10-201-708287: the applicant: Plaintiff 4) claims (amended by August 1, 2013) / the claim No. 1. 200 / the claim(s) / the claim(s) 1. The claim(s) : Drar; the number of drones in contact with sirens; the claim(s) ; the claim(s) are placed in place between sirens and hybrids; the claim(s) 1 to 2, which included at least one of the two former drawings(s) that correspond to the two preceding paragraphs(s) and 1 to 2, which contain at least one of the two preceding paragraphs(s) known to the two preceding paragraphs(s).

B. Cited Invention 1) Invention 1 (Evidence 3) published on March 13, 2008 in the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2008-58391, published on March 13, 2008, relating to “lived Invention 1” and its main contents and main drawings are as follows: (a) Invention 2 (Evidence 3-2) published on May 29, 2008, published on the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2008-12470, published on May 29, 2008, relating to “live business operation equipment and the manufacturing method thereof,” and the main contents and main drawings are as shown in [Attachment 2-2].

C. On October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff did not clearly and simply state all the claims 1-19 of the invention in the instant application, and the Plaintiff did not meet the specification requirements before filing the application.