So ist z.B. in der BGH-Entscheidung

So ist z.B. in der BGH-Entscheidung „Rundfunkübertragungssystem“ (BGH, GRUR 1987, 626) ausgeführt, der Patentanspruch müsse „den Leser mit hinreichender Deutlichkeit darüber ins Bild setzen, welche Erfindung (Lehre) geschützt ist. (…) Die Leser der Patentschrift müssen sich darauf verlassen können, dass das, was im Patent unter Schutz gestellt ist, im Patentanspruch hinreichend deutlich bezeichnet ist“.

結果 (英文) 1:

For example, in the BGH decision "Broadcasting system" (BGH, GRUR 1987, 626) running, the claim had "the reader with sufficient clarity about in the image set, what invention (teaching) is protected. (…) The readers of the patent specification can rely on, that what is provided in the patent protection is sufficiently clearly referred to in the claim".

結果 (英文) 2:

For example, in the Supreme Court decision "broadcasting system" (BGH, GRUR 1987, 626) executed, the claim had to "put the reader with sufficient clarity about the picture which the invention is (teaching) protected. (...) The readers of the patent must be able to rely on the fact that what is provided in the patent protected, is referred with sufficient clarity in the claim ".

結果 (英文) 3:

for example, in the federal court of justice decision „rundfunkübertragungssystem "(1987), p., 626) stated, the reader must claim sufficiently over the image, the invention (apprenticeship) is protected. (...) the readers of the specification must be able to rely on what the patent protected.the claim clearly enough '. "