"[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)

"In Dell, the petitioner presented a new argument for unpatentability at the oral hearing that was premised on a previously unasserted portion of the prior art . . .The patent owner “was given no prior notice of that contention,” and “no opportunity . . . to supply evidence” at the oral hearing. Id. The court vacated and remanded the Board’s finding on that claim, concluding that the Board relied on this new argument “alone for an essential part of its anticipation ground of decision.”"

"The notion that G+ had no notice of the “may” language or the arguments surrounding it is one that we squarely reject. The “comb structure” issue was initially raised by G+ . . . And the “may” language is found in Kwak itself . . . “if a TTI includes 2 symbols, a transmission method based on a base sequence may be applied to the structure of FIG. 43 and a different CS index may be applied for each slot” . . . Indeed, G+’s briefing before the Board referenced the same portions of Kwak cited by the Board in its decision. "

"Here, the claims are definite because a skilled artisan would be able, with reasonable certainty, to look at a firearm magazine housing, identify the claimed distances, measure them, and determine if the housing falls within the scope of the claim. That a skilled artisan might not be able to make the design decisions to successfully build an operable magazine housing based on the ’045 patent’s specification goes to the question of enablement, not definiteness. Because the court erred by conflating the standards for these separate legal requirements, it incorrectly concluded the claims were indefinite."