In sum, Claim 1 is held obvious in view of the combination of the cited prior art reference 1 and 3, the combination of reference 1, 2 and 3, or the combination of reference 1, 2 and 4. Claim 12 is held obvious in view of the combination of the cited reference 1, 2 and 4. Claim 22 is held obvious in view of the combination of the cited reference 2 and 5, or the combination of the cited reference 2 and 6. The claim 29 is held obvious in view of the combination of the cited prior art reference 1, 2 and 3, or the combination of the cited reference 1, 2 and 4. However, the cited reference 3, 4, 5 and 6, and their combination with reference 1 and 2 were newly produced by the plaintiff in the litigation after the case was filed with this Court, and the intervener thus did not have a chance to consider applying for claim amendments while the case was formerly in the opposition proceeding with the defendant -- the patent agency. Besides, if the defendant found Claims 1, 12, 22 and 29 to be obvious during the opposition proceeding, it should go on to examine the patentability of the rest dependent claims in the same patent. In view of protecting the intervener’s procedural benefit that she retains a chance to apply for claim amendments in response to negative evidence produced, and the fact that the patentability of the dependent claims need to be reviewed, this Court decides to remand the case back to the defendant for further examination on the basis of the above instructions from the Court.