The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the instant patent invention constitutes infringement of language and text (ground of appeal No. 1-1, 1-2), the lower court determined that the instant patent invention (patent registration number No. 1001354)’s claim No. 1 (patent registration number No. 1001354) does not include the same element as composition 5, and thus does not constitute infringement of language and text.

For this reason, if the vertical crossing of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case is cut off, the vertical crossing is formed in a slope of the central part from both sides of the direction to form broom brooms so that the vertical crossing can form brooms, and if the Defendant’s implementation product is the carbon bomb of the product, the two sides of the direction to the middle part of the width direction is formed in a sloped form of a non-titled erode of the eronomed eros with the middle part from both sides of the width direction, and thus there is a literal difference.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of claims, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary

2. Whether this constitutes equal infringement (Ground of appeal No. 1-3)

A. If an applicant or a patentee can be deemed to have excluded a product in comparison with a patented invention (hereinafter referred to as “subject product”) from the claims of the patented invention during the process of filing an application for the patent invention, the patentee’s assertion that the subject product belongs to the scope of protection of the patented invention against a person who manufactures and sells the subject product shall not be permitted due to the violation of the doctrine of prohibition.

The Korean Intellectual Property Office is not only a specification but also a patent from the application process for a patented invention until the date of patent application.