For example, the comparison file is "metal". The application is "copper and iron". Then whether the application is novel or not has nothing to do with coverage or not. Because metal is the superordinate concept of titanium alloy, for example, the reference document discloses titanium alloy, so if this application protects metal, the application does not have novelty. I think either you misinterpreted the meaning of the book or there is something wrong with the writing.
As for creativity, judging is more complicated, so simply replacing "creative judgment" with "covering" is too understatement. Also give this example. For example, the reference document discloses "metal". The application is "copper and iron". Then the application is novel at this time. The problem of creativity can be judged by applying the creative judgment standard of selective inventions stipulated in Chapter 4 Creativity in Part II of Review Guide 20 10. Only when this choice is made (that is, when copper and iron are selected), the whole technical scheme will produce unexpected technical effects compared with the prior art (unexpected technical effects refer to that the technical effects of the technical scheme required to be protected have changed quantitatively compared with the prior art, exceeding the expectations of technicians in the field, or have changed qualitatively, resulting in new performance. This is not the guide's exact words, I can't remember clearly. At this point, creativity is not simply covering or not covering the problem. Creative judgment has nothing to do with novelty judgment. Fundamentally speaking, the prominent substantive feature refers to whether the claimed invention is obvious to those skilled in the art relative to the existing technology. And whether the prior art as a whole gives some technical enlightenment, so that the technicians in this field have the motivation to improve the nearest prior art when facing the technical problems to be solved, and obtain the present invention. You don't have a specific case of this problem, you can only make a simple theoretical explanation. Of course, the actual creative judgment is much more complicated than this, and the specific problems are analyzed in detail. You don't know. You're so sure.