The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of a patent invention (patent number C) Claim No. 1 of the instant patent invention (patent number C) named as “D” (hereinafter “instant patent correction invention”) could be easily derived from a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) by combining prior inventions, and thus, the nonobviousness of the patent invention is denied.

The reason for this is that the elements 1 of the corrective invention of this case among the corrective invention of this case and the response composition of the preceding invention 1 include COdiolate nitrophate in all active ingredients, and the person having ordinary skill can easily derive the difference between the corrective invention of this case 1 and the preceding invention 1 by referring to the prior invention 3 of this case by referring to the prior invention 1 of this case or the prior invention 1 of the prior invention 1 in the process of developing the limitation creation of nicoditrophate nitrophate in the process of developing the limitation creation of the relevant technology field.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the determination of inventive step, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.