The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

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

1. In determining the inventive step of a patent invention by citing various prior art documents, if the prior art documents are presented in the prior art documents that if the cited technology is combined or combined, the inventive step of the patent invention concerned is denied if a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily combine it in light of the technical level at the time of the application of the patent invention in question, 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).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, we examine the inventive step of Paragraph 1 (1) of the Claim for the Correction Invention (Patent Registration Number F) named as “C” (Patent Tribunal Decision No. 2015No. 59, Feb. 19, 2016; hereinafter “instant Claim 1”).

(1) The claims for the corrective invention of Paragraph (1) of this case are “the parties selected from the Guns consisting of Sukn, Manits, or Tret; the Amina acid selected from the Guns consisting of Linnish, Lina, Linthr, Linthridine, or Linnanium; and the Amina acid selected from the Guns consisting of polyethylene or polyethylene-Maolpropyropium, which contain the guidanceal agents selected from the Guns consisting of polyethylene or polymethylthropium,” or “the stable colonic colonic colonic colonic colonic colonic colonic colonic colonic colonic cos.”

(2) The correction invention of Paragraph (1) of this case and Prior Invention 1 of the judgment of the court below are human beings, including Suwon, Malaysia, Malaysia or Tretle, and hyslidine, a kind of Aminosin.