The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined that the industrial applicability of the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 1536975) was recognized with regard to the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 1536975) using the name “the inner drainage pipe equipment and its construction method within the floor structure”.

For this reason, the patented invention of this case is likely to be in contact with the sealed official in the actual implementation process, but these problems can be sufficiently resolved by appropriately selecting the materials of sealed official or appropriately regulating the number and size of the official, and there are no other circumstances to deem it impossible to implement the patented invention of this case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the possibility of industrial applicability, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 of the Patent Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) and the prior inventions of the judgment of the lower court among the instant Claim No. 1, the nonobviousness of the invention cannot be easily derived, on the grounds that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains could not combine the prior inventions, and thus, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 cannot be denied.

In addition, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 7 invention, which is a dependent claim citing the instant Claim 1 invention, is not denied, insofar as the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 invention is not denied as above.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

The court below's decision.