The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of each of the elements of the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 48940, Feb. 12, 2016)’s claim No. 1 (patent registration number No. 48940) based on the name “bridge reclamation type” could be easily derived from a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) by starting prior inventions as indicated in the lower judgment or combining them.

In addition, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of Paragraph 2, which is a subordinate claim citing Paragraph 1, is denied as it could easily be claimed by a person with ordinary skill by combining prior inventions.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 on the bench.