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 the patent invention of this case (patent registration No. 430191)’s claim No. 1 (patent registration number No. 4301) (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) with the name of “only filled-in type of bricks reclamation,” could be easily derived from a combination of prior inventions and widely known art to a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”).

The reason for this is that, among the corrective inventions of this case, the "a composition that can repair inside the opening and closing door without separating each connecting part, such as water supply tap, etc., in combination with the opening and closing door," of the component 2 of the original adjudication, from among the corrective inventions of this case, is commenced in the preceding invention 4 at the time of the original adjudication, and the functional piping method of the component 1 is merely the piping structure that can be selected by the ordinary skilled person according to the needs.

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.