1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 14, 2015, the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff on the Intellectual Property Tribunal for correction of the claims of the instant patent invention on April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the scope of the patent invention on April 30, 2015, but the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a request for correction of the claims of the instant patent invention on April 30, 2015, on the ground that “The Patent Tribunal made a request for correction of the claims of the instant patent invention on March 8, 2016, by deeming that the claims of the instant patent invention were substantially modified, and the Plaintiff made a correction notification as to the correction statement, etc. on March 8, 2016, on March 21, 2016.

3) On April 6, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal’s amendment to the instant patent invention is unlawful on the ground of an amendment to the substance of the amendment. ② A request for correction to the instant patent invention is unlawful on the grounds that it adds new matters and modifies claims. ③ Claim 1 through 3, 6, 9, and 11 of the instant patent invention prior to the amendment is denied inasmuch as the nonobviousness can easily be made by ordinary technicians by prior inventions 1 and 7. ④ Claim 4 and 5 of the instant patent invention are not denied by prior inventions 1 through 7 (hereinafter “instant trial decision”).

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the part concerning claims 1 to 3, 6, 9, and 11 of the instant patent invention among the instant trial decision (the above part). Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the part concerning claims 4 and 5 of the instant patent invention (the above part) among the instant trial decision (the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the part concerning claims 4 and 5 of the instant patent invention (the above part) with this Court.

B. The name of the Plaintiff’s patented invention (No. 2) invention of this case: The combination structure of mixing with each other and its structure.