The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. In determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art references, the inventive step of the relevant patent invention is denied in cases where a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily conduct such combination in light of the technical level at the time of the application of the relevant patent invention, technical awareness, basic tasks of the relevant technical field, development tendency, demand of the relevant industry, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284, Sept. 6, 2007).

We examine the above legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the court below.

1) As to the corrected invention under paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of the instant case, the instant patent invention (patent registration number C) is an invention with the name “D”.

The claims (amended on August 29, 2017)(2) of the instant Claim(hereinafter “instant Claim No. 2”) are subordinate claims of the instant Claim No. 1. The instant Claim No. 1 also limits that the instant Claim No. 1 contains “a h.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s. h.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.

B) Of the instant corrective invention as referred to in paragraph 2, the composition that combines the two frameworks into a liquid form by inserting the spacks of “a”’s shape into the horizontal frame and the vertical coponison frame (the instant corrective invention cited in Paragraph 2).