The IPO (Defendant) was correct in holding that the combination of Cited Evidence No. 1 and Cited Evidence No. 2 could not prove that the disputed claims in the present case did not meet the inventive-step requirement of patentability. In the present court proceeding, Plaintiff asserted that the combination of the prior art as described in the specification of the disputed patent, Cited Evidence No. 1, and Cited Evidence No. 2 invalidated the disputed claims for the reason of unfulfilling the inventive-step requirement. Though Plaintiff failed to raise such assertion in the opposition proceedings before the IPO and the administrative appeal board, but instead raised it later in the present litigation before this Court, we shall still consider such assertion according to Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, since this new evidence was in support of the same ground for revocation as Plaintiff put forth earlier in the opposition proceedings….Conclusively, Plaintiff’s opposition should be approved because the combination, the new evidence proposed in the present litigation, can prove that the disputed claims do not fulfill the inventive-step requirement so as to violate Article 94, Paragraph 4 of the Patent Act, regardless of the fact that the combination of Cited Evidence No. 1 and Cited Evidence No. 2, which Plaintiff asserted earlier before the IPO and the administrative appeal board, could not vindicate that the disputed claims fail to meet the inventive-step requirement.