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).

1. In order to deny the inventive step of a selective invention, which contains the elements written in the preceding invention as a superior concept, and only the subordinate concepts included in the above upper concept as a whole or part of the components, all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have effects different in quality from those of the preceding invention, or there must be substantial differences in quantity even without qualitative differences.

(2) On May 16, 2014, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 36304) under the name of semiconductor wafers is denied by comparison invention 2 on the following grounds: (a) in a patent invalidation trial against the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 366304), the claims for correction of which was requested on November 18, 201 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1 correction invention”; and (b) the other claims are also included in the same manner; and (c) determined that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention under paragraphs (3) and (4) of the instant case, which is the subordinate invention to the instant corrective invention, is also denied by comparison invention 2.

The “Plidine compound compound” in the instant corrective invention is a subordinate concept of “salidine 2” of comparable inventions 2, which is a higher concept, and the numerical value is limited to 0.01-10 weight weights of 0.01 to 100 square meters of saccium and saccine 100. Thus, in order to deny the nonobviousness of the instant corrective invention, the nonobviousness of the instant corrective invention ought to be clearly different from the effects of the saccine saccine 2 launched in comparable inventions 2 from the total numerical scope.

B. However, the test environment and theme condition that can be grasped from the specifications of both inventions are substantially the same, so in both inventions, metal acids are the same.