The case holding that the nonobviousness of the claim Nos. 1 and 2 of the patented invention named “(7 Amph and 17 Amphphphs)-17-hytho-7-Mean-17-formers-17-formers-17 (10)-formers-5 (10)-N-20-person-3-formers, and pharmaceutical products containing pharmaceutically permissible substance” cannot be deemed to be sufficiently predicted in cases where the pharmaceutical products are manufactured in addition to the pharmaceutically permissible substance, which is widely known and commonly used art, compared to the comparable invention, since there is no difficulty in composition compared to the comparable invention, and its effects cannot be said to be significant only to the extent that it can be easily predicted in cases where the person with ordinary skills can easily make inventions by combining the art widely known and widely used.

Articles 29(1) and (2), and 136(4) (see current Article 136(3)) of the former Patent Act (Amended by Act No. 6411, Feb. 3, 2001)

UN.B.Obio (Attorneys Ahn Yong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] U.S. (Patent Attorney Song-ju et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Patent Court Decision 2007Heo3707 Decided March 20, 2008

The appeal is 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 records, the first-determined compound and its medicine are commenced in the comparable invention, and each decision order also includes the combination of pharmaceutical products that can easily be used in the art of the invention of this case (patent No. 183401) among the patent invention of this case (patent No. 183401, hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1, 2,” and the remaining claims are known to the same method), which is the active element of the patent invention of this case (patent No. 1, No. 183401, Patent No. 183401, Patent No. 183401, Patent No. 183401, Patent No. 2, Patent No. 183401, Patent No. 2, Patent No. 2, Patent No. 183401, Patent No. 2, Patent No. 2, and Patent No. 1, etc.).

The invention of the instant Claim 3 is a method of manufacturing purely determined compound used in the pharmaceutical products of the instant Claim 1, and it is related to the method of manufacturing ethyl ton or a mixture of water; or it is related to the method of determining ethyl ton or a mixture of arche-xines. It is not clearly indicated in the specification of the instant Claim 1 as an calculous compound and its calculic calculic calculic calulic calculic calculic calculic calulic calulic calculic calulic calculic calculic calculic calulic calculic calulic calulic calulic calculic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calulic calculic cal.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s request for correction to delete the Claim 6 invention of this case is not permissible since the Plaintiff’s request for correction fails to meet the patent requirements as seen earlier and the claim 1 through 3 invention of this case is patentable at the time of filing a patent application after correction.

Therefore, the judgment below 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 an invention, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, as to the part concerning the claim 6 invention of this case among the judgment below, the plaintiff did not make an argument in the grounds of appeal

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.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)