1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 21, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (1) notified the Plaintiff of the presentation of his/her opinion on the Plaintiff’s patent application invention of the following: (a) on January 21, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Intellectual Property Office”) that “the patent application invention of this case violates the methods of entering claims 4 through 7, and claims 1 through 7 violates the methods of entering claims; and (b) the inventive step is denied as it is possible for a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to easily make inventions from the prior inventions described in the instant paragraph (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary engineer”). Accordingly, on March 20, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted the amendment of the written argument and claims on July 29, 2015; (b) on the ground that the patent application of this case was still denied by the prior inventions, the Plaintiff still rejected the patent application of this case by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office’s amendment of 15.

3) On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2015 won78). However, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rendered the instant decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the invention described in paragraph (1) of this case is denied by prior inventions below.” (B) The name of the invention described in the instant patent application (Evidence No. 1, 5, No. 1, No. 1) invention: Turbocarer refers to a device that combines air to increase the output of engine on a motor vehicle. Surling is a axis.