The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) of the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 1335932, hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) using the title “the composition of the Memera-Kamera to treat cancer,” and the scope of the instant patent invention No. 1 (patent registration number No. 135932, hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) is denied since the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) is compared with the prior invention No. 1 and No. 2.

In addition, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 2 through 19, which is a subordinate claim citing the instant Claim No. 1 invention, is denied as it could easily be claimed by a person with ordinary skill by prior art Nos. 1 and 2.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.