[1] In the case of an invention provided in comparison to determine the inventive step of an invention, whether it can be the subject of the invention, if it is possible for a person of ordinary skill to easily understand the contents of technology based on the empirical rule even if the expression is insufficient due to insufficient completion inventions or materials (affirmative

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the inventive step is denied in the claim No. 5 of the patented invention named "bennasium useful for the prevention of bones loss" as it is possible for a person with ordinary skill to easily make an invention from comparable inventions

[1] Article 29(1) and (2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(1) and (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Hu270 delivered on December 8, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 306)

Hani L&Wn (Law Firm Squa et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sejong District Court Decision 201Na14488 delivered on August 1, 201

Patent Court Decision 2008Heo8167 Decided June 3, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

In light of the record, the claim 5 (Patent No. 161300) of the patented invention of this case (patent No. 161300) named "the patent No. 5 invention of this case" (hereinafter "patent No. 5 invention of this case"), "the remaining claims also contain its salts permissible in the same manner as that of boom pentine chemical compounds or pharmaceutical medicine, and after a closed competition, it is deemed that "the pharmaceutical preparations to be used to prevent or treat brusium after the closed competition by preventing any loss of bones caused by halogen disorder of women after the closed competition," and the comparable invention of this case has been initiated with "the pharmaceutical preparations to be used to prevent or treat brusium after the closed competition." On the other hand, the invention of this case shows that "the reduction in the density of bones density by dynasium or brusium due to dynasium dynasium" of the brusium of this case can not be seen as any combination of the above 5th invention.

In addition, Claim 5 invention of this case is effective to suppress other side effects by inserting bat pent compounds, such as dunesa, and to avoid other side effects. Invention 5 also contains the effect of reducing the risks of dunesa cancer or batoma cancer while preventing or treating dunesa, and thus, Claim 5 invention of this case is not different from the cited invention in its effect, or is merely a possible degree for ordinary technicians to predict.

Furthermore, it cannot be readily concluded that there is no motive for ordinary technicians to develop the invention as medicine solely on the ground that it is known at the time of the priority date of the instant patent invention, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal. The method for measuring animal models and bones loss in the comparable invention is not appropriate, and even if it is so, the invention provided in the judgment of inventive step can be a subject if it is possible for ordinary technicians to easily understand the contents of technology based on the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hu270 delivered on December 8, 2000), and it cannot be deemed that the comparable invention is not a prior art that denies the inventive step of the instant patent invention, and it cannot be trusted due to the content of the evidence No. 7 evidence No. 1, and thus, it cannot be said that the cited invention cannot be trusted due to the content of the evidence No. 7.

Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of the invention, or in violation of the rules of evidence, etc. In addition, the ground of appeal on the invention of paragraphs 6 through 9 of this case is premised on the fact that the inventive step of Paragraph 5 of this case is not denied, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)