1. In order to deny the nonobviousness of an selective invention whose elements are stated in the preceding or publicly known invention as a superior concept, and whose subordinate concepts are only the subordinate concepts included in the above upper concept as a whole or part of its components, all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have different effects from those of the preceding invention in quality, or there must be substantial differences in quantity, even though there is no qualitative difference.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu3664, May 16, 2014). In order to deem that a selective invention has a more effective effect than a prior invention in the event of a variety of selective inventions, not all types of selective inventions, but some of them are deemed to have such effect as compared to a prior invention.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu3424, Aug. 23, 2012). 2. We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court.

A. Paragraph 2 (hereinafter “instant Claim 2”) of Article 2 (2) of the instant patent invention (referring to the invention reflected in the matters corrected by the correction in February 18, 2013 in the procedure for the registration invalidation trial of the instant patent invention (patent registration number F) named “C” (hereinafter “instant Claim 2”) refers to (S)-N-ethyl-3- [1-dimethylicammethyl) with the structural awareness of chemical formula (I) among airbane carnets with the activation of airbane, and the remainder of the claims are included in the same manner) compound.

B. Revised Invention No. 2 and Invention No. 1-1 and 1-2 of the comparable Invention No. 1-2 as indicated in the judgment below are common in that they are compounds with chemical formula (I).

However, the compound of the corrected invention under Paragraph 2 of this case is separated from the RA7 (S).