All appeals are dismissed.

The request for continuation of proceedings by the requester for proceedings is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

In order to determine whether the nonobviousness of a invention is denied on the basis of the preceding literature presented, a comparison should be made based on the matters reasonably recognizable by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) by the entire prior literature, not only on a part that can serve as the basis for the denial of inventive step.

In addition, in case where other prior documents are presented that are contrary to the above part or that are uncertain, the determination of whether a person with ordinary skill can easily derive the invention should be made by comprehensively considering the contents of the prior documents.

B. As to the grounds of appeal relating to GABA (gamma-aminsyricidid), the lower court, on the following grounds, determined that the nonobviousness of the patent claim as requested in the patent invalidation trial on the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 491282) using the name “hambane for pain treatment and its inducement” and the patent claim Nos. 4 through 16 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant corrected invention”) do not deny the nonobviousness of the patent claim as requested in the patent invalidation trial on the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 491282).

① The corrected invention of this case is an invention of medicinal use relating to the exhaustion effect of press fluoride [3-(amnomethyl)-5-methyl acid, i.e. (S)-3-(amnomethyl)-5-methyl acid].

② It can be deemed that technical composition, which was commenced prior to the date on which the priority claim for the corrected invention of this case, included that the Rabin of the pressurine under paragraph (15) of the patent claim No. 17 of the amended invention of this case increases the GaBA level in brain.

However, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 17, the brain ABA level increase.