1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On August 16, 2016, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office notified the Plaintiff on August 16, 2016 of the instant patent application invention: (a) “The claim 1 through 11 of the instant patent application invention is identical to the prior invention 1 of the instant patent application; (b) the patent applicant’s claim 12 of the instant patent application invention is the same as the prior invention 1 of the instant patent application; (c) the patent applicant’s claim 12 of the instant patent application could easily be seen from a combination, and the patent applicant is not entitled to a patent pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, as the patent applicant could not obtain a patent, pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act, on the ground that the grounds for rejection of the instant patent application was rejected by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on January 16, 2017, on the ground that the patent application was rejected on February 13, 2017.”

3) On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff maintained the original decision (the decision of refusal dated February 13, 2017) on May 2, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted an amendment and written opinion to the effect that the claims for the invention of this case were amended as set forth in the following B-3) and filed a request for reexamination. However, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office maintained the original decision (the decision of refusal as of February 13, 2017) on the ground that “the grounds for rejection as of August 13, 2016, was not resolved even if the Plaintiff’

4) On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the foregoing decision of refusal with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (2017 Won2753) (the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) on November 30, 2018, where the nonobviousness of the claim 1 in the invention of this case is denied by comparable invention 1, and where the claims are two or more claims, one of the claims becomes grounds for rejection.