1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as “the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office”) shall have ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the Prior Invention 1 and 26 of the instant patent application invention (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”).

(2) The Patent Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patent application invention was denied on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patent application invention is easily denied (the claim 1 of the patent application invention of this case is accompanied by “the Claim 1 of this case,” and the remaining claims are also described in the same manner). 2) As to the Plaintiff’s request for a revocation of the patent application of this case, the Patent Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on August 22, 2014 on the ground that the nonobviousness of the patent application of this case is denied by prior inventions 1 and 2, and that in a patent application, where there are two or more claims, the patent application of this case shall be rejected entirely.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of whole pleadings

B. The name of the invention claimed in this case (No. 2) 1: The filing date/application number 2) of the customer holding financial assets operation system: the applicant: (a) the invention described in the summary of the invention is related to the system that operates the customer holding financial assets (i) the customer holding financial assets (i) the customer holding financial assets (i.e., the FAP’s individual price fluctuation rate and average price fluctuation rate), and (ii) the management and operation of the invention described in the summary of the invention in this case, based on objective and reasonable standards (e.g., the relative difference between the FAP’s individual price fluctuation rate and average price rate, etc.). In line with each customer’s changes in the social environment and changes in the economic environment, the applicant’s management and operation of the invention in this case based on the optimal level of economic environment.