The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that the instant Claim Nos. 2 through 8 inventions do not fall under the scope of the right to the instant Claim Nos. 1, the title of which is “C” (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim Nos. 1”) and the instant Claim Nos. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Claim Nos. 1,” and the instant Claim Nos. 2 through 8, the instant Claim No. 1 did not fall under the scope of the right to the instant Claim No. 1, on the grounds that the instant Claim No. 1 invention does not have an identical or equal composition with the “S. D.” as a component of the instant Claim No. 1 invention.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on equal infringement.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.