logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2016.09.30 2016허1895
거절결정(특)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office regarding the instant patent application by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant Claim Nos. 1 through (7) may easily make an invention from prior inventions 1, 2, and 3 and from No. 10-204-76726 of the Patent Gazette and the Patent Gazette. The nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 is denied. The Plaintiffs notified of their opinions to the purport, and the Plaintiffs submitted an amendment, such as the specification, etc. along with the written opinion on Nov. 25, 2014. However, despite the amendment, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision to reject the instant Claim Nos. 1 through (7) on the grounds that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 through (7) is still denied by prior inventions, etc. (2) the Plaintiffs made a decision to reject the instant Claim No. 461, Apr. 21, 2015.

Although the Korean Intellectual Property Office filed a request for reexamination on May 12, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner rejected the instant application on the grounds that the nonobviousness is still denied by prior inventions, etc. despite the amendment.

3) On June 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision of rejection with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal deliberated on the aforementioned appeal with the Intellectual Property Tribunal 2015 Won3414, and on February 17, 2016, the decision of this case was rendered to dismiss the above appeal on the ground that “the nonobviousness of Paragraph 1 invention of this case is denied by prior inventions 1 through 3, and if the claims amount to which paragraph 1 is claimed becomes two or more claims, the application must be rejected as a whole if any ground for rejection exists in any one of them.” (b) The name of the invention of this case (Evidence 1) invention of this case: C2 filing date/application number: D/E/3 claims: the final amendment as of April 21, 2015.”

arrow