beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on January 8, 2013 on the case No. 2012 won 2770 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Name 1 of the filed invention 1 of this case: The international filing date under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) / the filing date of priority claim / the filing date of translation / the filing date of the priority claim / the filing date of translation / November 6, 2008 / November 1, 2007 / July 28, 2009/ 10-209-709-70158313) with respect to the applicant: the Plaintiff 4 claims as shown in attached Table 1:
(Attachment 1-4) With respect to an individual claim under the final claim(s) as referred to in the attached Table 1-4, the invention shall be made in the same manner as the invention(s).
(b) Cited Invention (Evidence B No. 13) 1 / Publication/Disclosure Number: March 14, 2005 / Patent Gazette / Publication 10-2005-0252982) title: semiconductor wafers indicating the method of electrical operation, the method of prohibition, the net pets for the electric operation and the method of the electric operation, and any semiconductor wafers which are attached with a strong wave by using them;
C. On July 28, 2009, the decision to dismiss the amendment of the instant decision to reject the amendment: The Plaintiff submitted a translation of the patent application invention of this case with claims 1 through 1 as claims as shown in attached Table 1-2 on July 28, 2009. On the same day, the Plaintiff amended claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 as stated in attached Table 1-2, and submitted an amendment, such as a specification, etc. newly establishing claims 9.
On the other hand, on October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the change of the right relationship with the name of the applicant 's 's draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw draw e.
On June 27, 2011, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter “Korea Intellectual Property Office”) did not clearly and concisely state the claim 5-7 as to the part of the patent claim, “less the attachment is low,” and (2) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are denied by the comparison of inventions, and (3) claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 are comparable inventions.