1. As to the ground of appeal on inventive step

A. In determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art documents, the inventive step of the patent invention is denied in cases where a person with ordinary knowledge in the art at the time of the application of the patent invention in question (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily make such combinations in light of the level of technology at the time of the application of the patent invention in question, technical awareness, basic tasks of the relevant technical field, development tendency, demand from the relevant industry, etc. (hereinafter “ordinary technician”). A patent invention limited to the numerical value of the component elements of the patent prior to the filing of the patent application by limiting the scope of elements of the patent invention in the numerical value of the patent invention prior to the filing of the patent application is limited only to the existence of the task and effect on the extension line of the publicly known invention and the numerical value of the publicly known invention, and if there is no significant difference in the numerical effect within the limited numerical scope, the inventive step of the patent invention is limited to the degree that ordinary technicians can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments, and thus, it is merely denied in 1907.

We examine the above legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the court below.

1) The Plaintiffs’ instant patent invention (patent number F) is an invention under the name of “C”. Claim 1 (1) corrected by a trial decision of the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2015No. 20 dated October 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant patent invention”).

(A) In comparison with the preceding invention 1, the composition of the so-called “sub-mix-micker”, the main components of which consisting of the separation and distribution of the so-mixed body, which is the corrective invention under Paragraph (1) of this Article, is included in the preceding invention 1, and the composition of the so-called “assumpter”, “assumpter”, “assumptor”, “assumptor”, “assumpt 1”, and “assum 1”.