"The specification confirms the construction of the claim term as structural, not as based on a causal function. To the extent that the specification contains a limitation that the symmetry broken nature of the structure must cause the structure to be uniaxial, that would be a limitation based on function . . . Here, as explained, the invention is “claimed in purely structural terms” and thus “generally resists functional limitation.” See id. In addition, lexicography does not apply, because the specification does not “clearly set forth” any definition of “uniaxial symmetry broken structure” . . . Thus, we conclude that “uniaxial symmetry broken structure” should be construed as “a symmetry broken structure that is uniaxial.” Accordingly, the district court’s construction, “a structure that is uniaxial as a result of being symmetry broken,” is erroneous."

"[T]he original disclosure also compares the preferred alloy to four other commercial alloys that exclude germanium, like the claimed sterling silver alloy. The original disclosure then contends that the preferred alloy outperforms these non-germanium-based alloys. As such, the Board reasonably concluded that the comparison to various alternative alloys neither distinguishes germanium nor suggests the inventor intended to exclude or omit germanium in the claimed invention."

1. "[T]he Board found that a skilled artisan would have a reason to doubt that Sekine’s R1/f teachings could have usefully applied to Chung given the “significant differences” in the two systems: Chung’s embodiments each had a negative first lens and a positive second lens, while Sekine had the opposite configuration";
2. "[T]he Board found that Sekine disclosed an inferior lens"; and
3. "[T]he Board found that Sekine’s teaching of shortening track length would be “inapplicable” to Chung’s embodiments because of differences in lens shapes."