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 decided to refuse the instant application on April 28, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination of the instant application by amending the specification on July 28, 2014. 2) The examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on September 2, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary engineer”) filed a request for reexamination of the instant application on September 2, 2014 by the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary engineer”) published on March 2, 2004, regarding the Prior Invention 1 through 4 Prior Invention 4, published on March 2, 2004 by the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, and was not submitted as prior invention in the instant lawsuit.

It notified the reason for rejection on the ground that the inventive step can be easily described.

Accordingly, on February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s claims for the invention of this case are as follows.

3) On July 31, 2015, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office made a decision to refuse the instant application on the ground that the inventive step is denied by prior inventions, despite the aforementioned amendment, the nonobviousness of the instant patent application Claim 1, 2, 4, or 24 (hereinafter “Claim 1”, and the remainder of the claims shall be referred to as “instant Claim 1”, and the inventive step is still denied by prior inventions. 3) Accordingly, on October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant decision of refusal (No. 2015 won6011) with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. On August 22, 2016, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the nonobviousness of the instant invention is denied by prior inventions 1 or 3, and in case where the claims are two or more claims, if any one of the grounds for rejection exists, the Plaintiff’s appeal shall be dismissed as a whole on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

B. The Plaintiff’s name of the invention claimed in the instant case (No. 2 of the A, No. 1 of the B): 2 of the container warehouse: the date of claiming priority/ the filing date/ the application number: February 2, 2009/ February 1, 2010/ October 10.