1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office presented to the Plaintiff a written opinion and amendment stating that “A person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily make an invention from the prior invention, and the Plaintiff shall not obtain a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.” On October 27, 2014, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted a written opinion and amendment to correct the claims as described in Article 29(2)(b) of the Patent Act. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s amendment was not annulled despite the Plaintiff’s foregoing ground for rejection, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on February 23, 2015 pursuant to Article 62 of the Patent Act on April 8, 2015.

4) As described in Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, an examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office filed a request for reexamination on May 14, 2015, on the ground that “In spite of the Plaintiff’s amendment, the entire claim of the instant invention can be easily claimed from the prior invention by a person of ordinary skill, and thus, the patent cannot be granted pursuant to Article 62 of the Patent Act” was rejected.

3) On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial on an appeal against the decision of refusal as stated in the foregoing Paragraph (2) with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board). On July 21, 2017, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) filed a petition for the trial on the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the instant patent application’s Claim No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim No. 2”) as amended by April 8, 2015 is denied by prior inventions, and where there are several claims in one patent application, the patent application must be rejected in entirety if there is a ground for rejection even under any one of them.”