The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the subsidization.

The lower court determined that: (a) the instant patent invention (patent number F) Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “C”); and (b) the patent tribunal’s claim No. 2016No. 83, Jul. 28, 2016, claimed to be corrected by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board under the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2016, Jul. 28, 2016), the nonobviousness is denied on the ground that the invention could easily be claimed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains through a combination of the preceding invention No. 1 and No.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step of an invention, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the portion arising from the participation in the subsidy. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.