1. The specification and drawings of a patent may and shall be used as a reference for claim construction, but it is the claims themselves that are the real basis for delineating a patent right. Therefore, the specification and drawings of a patent can merely assist interpreting the limitations (such as terms and phrases) that already exist in the claims of the patent. Furthermore, the limitations described in the specification and drawings of such patent are not allowed to be read into the claims. That is, it is not permissible to employ the contents of the specification and drawings to either increase or decrease the limitations that the claims already contain.2. On August 22, 2008, both parties of the instant case stipulated with this Court that Defendant shall submit within 45 days (that is, before October 7, 2008) her reasons and evidences in support of the defense that the disputed patent is invalid. The record of the preparation proceeding on August 22, 2008 clearly indicates such agreement. Notwithstanding, Defendant delayed the submission till December 12, 2008 when she filed Civil Preparation Brief No. 2 to provide Evidence No. 17 to No. 21 to this Court. It was obvious that Defendant committed gross negligence on this delay and as a result sabotaged the termination of the present litigation. According to Article 33 of the Implementation Rules of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, this Court sets aside Evidence No. 17 to No. 21 without considering them.

Article 33 of the Implementation Rules of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act