The judgment below

Of the claims for patent registration number No. 696918, the part concerning paragraphs 9 and 10.

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

1. As to the ground of appeal as to the claim(6) and (7)

A. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that, among the patent inventions of this case (patent registration number No. 69918, Nov. 30, 2010, corrected by final and conclusive rulings rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2010No. 50, Nov. 30, 2010), the nonobviousness of the patent claim No. 6 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 6”) cannot be denied by comparable inventions, and the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 7, which is a subordinate invention citing the instant Claim No. 6, cannot be denied by comparable inventions as indicated in the holding of the lower court.

1) Composition 2 and 3 of the instant Claim No. 6 invention as indicated in the lower judgment: (a) organic combination of the following contents: “PVA film is made using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) detailed from the hot water of 30 to 90°C; (b) reduced 10cm by 10cm square meters and 10 to 90cm; and (c) remove PVA film from the final content of the instant Claim No. 6 invention within a certain scope of 50°C, which has a high level of 4 hours when leaving the PVA film for 4 hours in the number of 50°; and (d) remove 10 to 60 ppmm in the form of the PV film from the final content of the instant Claim No. 6 invention; and (e) remove 5% of the PVA film in the form of the PVA film prior to the process of manufacturing the PVA’s raw material into water; and (e) remove it from the PVA’s final content within the scope.