The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a patent-registered invention expresses only the scope of elements of the invention publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application in numerical value, if there is a difference between the task and effect of the patent invention on the extension of the publicly known invention and the existence of numerical values, the patent invention is not a simple numerical value determination to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments, and thus its inventive step is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu4998, Aug. 19, 2010). 2. The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the patent invention of this case (patent No. 839206, Feb. 19, 2010; hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”; and hereinafter “Claim No. 1”) claims No. 1 of the patent invention of this case (patent No. 839206, Mar. 1, 200) with the name “Paint Materials Materials,” and the other claims are denied by the following reasons.

The technical field of the instant Claim 1 and the comparable inventions 1 are the same in that both of the instant Claim 1 and the cited inventions 1 are related to the paintiable materials.

B. The main purpose of the instant Claim No. 1 invention and the instant Claim No. 1 invention is the same in that they provide painting materials with high self-specific value, and the other purpose of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is to lower the clean temperature below 1150cc, recognizing the low clean temperature as an advantage for production, and recognizing the lower clean temperature as an example of desirable clean temperature, and thus, it is difficult to recognize its unique nature as being commenced in the instant Claim No. 1 invention that presents the above figures as an example of desirable clean temperature.

(c) both inventions are all painted materials;