1. A patented invention limited to the scope of the elements of an invention publicly known prior to the filing of an application in numerical value is only different only from the extension line of an invention publicly known in its task and effect, and there is no significant difference between the effects within the limited numerical scope, the inventive step is denied because it is merely a simple numerical limitation to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can properly choose through ordinary and repetitive experiments (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu1299, Nov. 16, 2007, etc.).

2. The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “ Claim No. 1 invention of this case”) amended on June 12, 2014 of the invention claimed in the instant application (hereinafter “application number omitted, title”: “production method of water sources for mineral materials”) was denied by the cited invention on the grounds as follows.

A. The instant Claim No. 1 invention and the comparable invention as indicated in the lower judgment are the raw materials of luminous materials (bl.e., polyent compound compound by mixing them with polychopide compounds, and are the method of manufacturing luminous materials combining them. However, the instant Claim No. 1 invention has numerically limited the content of “serious synthetic compound” by “10 to 300 p.m.,” which combines polychopide compound with polychopideide compound. The response structure of the comparable invention does not explicitly limit the content of “serious synthetic compound” with “10 to 300 p.m.,” but limits the content of “c.m.,” which is “s., in the mixture of polychopic compound,” to the content of “s.,” which is “s., in combination of polychopic compounds,” to the content of “s.,” which is “s.,” which are “s. 1 invention” to the instant invention does not explicitly include the content of “s. 20 p.p.m.

나. 이 사건 출원발명의 명세서를 보아도 이 사건 제1항 발명에서 밝힌 ‘중합성 조성물’이나 ‘폴리티올 화합물’의 수분 함유량이 그 수치범위 내외에서 렌즈의 맥리(맥리: 광학 유리 등의 내부에 있는 굴절률이 불균일한 부분)나 백탁(백탁: 뿌옇게 흐려짐) 발생 억제와 관련하여 현저한 효과를 갖는다고 인정할 만한 기재가 없다.

C. In manufacturing a compound containing emulsium reactioning a water part, using the reaction materials with the removal of water content in order to restrain side reaction between emulsium and water, smelting agents, etc., and using the method of distributing or expulping nitrogen under the pressure to remove water from the reaction materials is widely used before the application of the invention in this case. As such, in the invention in paragraph (1) of this case, “a process to reduce the content of 20 to 600 ppm of hydrogen distribution or polysium compounds” can be easily derived by a person with ordinary skill by applying widely known and tolerance technology to comparable inventions.

D. In the instant Claim No. 1 invention, the effect of suppressing the content of the water content of the heavy synthetic product to be achieved by controlling the numerical value of the content of the heavy synthetic product is merely the same content as that of the comparable invention, or it is merely the confirmation of the effect inherent in the professional engineer of the comparable invention.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on determining the inventive step of a numerical limited invention, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc., contrary to what

4. 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.

Justices Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)