"[W]e hold that the representative claims of the Asserted Patents are directed to an abstract idea of “generating and sharing self-contained, interactive charts on computers” or “across websites” . . . he district court stated that “even surpassing plausibility to assume Adobe Flash was not conventionally used, the claim language [of claim 1 of the ’892 patent] does not limit this claim to using Adobe Flash or to any mechanism by which its ideas are accomplished.” J.A. 14. And like the district court correctly concluded, this failure by the claims was “fatal” to iChart’s step-two position . . . we conclude that at Alice step two, there is nothing in the representative claims of the Asserted Patents sufficient to transform them into eligible subject matter."

"We strongly disfavor construing “terms in a way that renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous” . . . Because claim 1 provides that the string guides are both “mounted to” and “rotatable,” Ravin’s proposed construction would render the claimed “rotatable around a first axis” and “rotatable around a second axis” limitations superfluous . . . Similarly, the written description does not limit the “mounted to” connection to allow only rotational movement but repeatedly describes the string guides, “mounted to” the limbs, are “rotatable” . . . We see no error in the Board’s construction of “mounted to” to mean “connected to, either directly or indirectly,” and Ravin poses no separate challenge to the Board’s anticipation finding under this construction. We therefore affirm the unpatentability of claim 1 of the ’015 patent."

"[The Board] found, based on a fully developed record, that “level of physical fitness” may be conveyed through physical characteristics, such as stride length and body weight, when such characteristics are viewed in relation to one another . . . we must reject Nike’s argument that certain physical characteristics cannot be included in evaluating a “level of physical fitness.” As the Board noted, the claim’s “broad phrasing” suggests “level of physical fitness” should not be limited, and the ’413 patent specification does not further cabin the term . . . Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Amano anticipates limitation."

"Although this court has “cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification” . . . we have also recognized that disclosed embodiments and examples “can shed light on the intended scope of the claims” . . . Here, the fact that all six examples in the specification describe using the “dissolving agent” combination of an organic acid and a polyalcohol to dissolve the lidocaine bolsters the conclusion that the claimed dissolving agent must dissolve the lidocaine and not simply prevent crystallization of the lidocaine in the finished patch."

"The specification does not expressly define “secure” as requiring IPSec . . . [O]nce the inventor expressly stated that “[t]he invention is not restricted to the details of the figures and accompanying text, or any existing protocols, such as the currently standardised IPSec” . . . we cannot say that the sheer number of references to IPSec in the specification allows us to ignore the inventor’s express language in column 9 and read an IPSec requirement into the broad claim term “secure.”" (emphasis added)