The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. In principle, the scope of protection of a patented invention as to the ground of appeal No. 1 is determined by the matters indicated in the claims. However, even if the description alone is insufficient to determine the technical composition of the patented invention, or the technical scope is unknown, if it is not possible to determine the technical scope, the supplement may be made by other descriptions in the specification. However, even in such a case, the extension of the claims is not allowed by other descriptions in the specification, and the limitation of the claims cannot be interpreted by other descriptions in the specification if the technical scope is apparent

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2377 Decided February 10, 201, etc.). The lower court construed the part of the elements of Claim 1 (Patent Number F) of the instant patent invention (patent number F) named “C” (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) as the part of the lower judgment, which adjusts the distance according to the tracedic formula in accordance with topographical conditions and terms and conditions, to the extent that the control part of the elements of the instant patent invention (patent number F), which is named “C, is deemed to be Formula 1 invention” as the part of the lower judgment, as follows: “First, recognizing the topographical conditions that are seen on a virtual golf course; in this case, if the user’s view is different from the other part of the instant patent invention, the license apparatus ought to be understood as adjusting the distance according to the combination, taking into account the topographical conditions and the terms and conditions into account.”

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of claims or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc., thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined on the second ground of appeal, combines 1 and 2 inventions in the instant case’s Claims Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9 with prior inventions by a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field.