The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. In principle, the scope of protection of a patented invention with respect to the determination of points 1, 2, and 4 of the grounds of appeal is determined by the matters indicated in the claims. However, in a case where the technical composition of the patented invention is unknown or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even if the description alone is known, 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 in a case where the technical scope is apparent solely based on the descriptions in the specification, the limitation on

(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 in its judgment prior to the foregoing, or did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds, inconsistent with the reasoning, pleading principle, or violation of the

2. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined on the third ground of appeal: (a) inventions of paragraphs 1 through 10 of this case are comprised of prior inventions 1 and 2 by a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field.