In Re: Gorelik

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

July 8, 2016

ERRATUM
______________________

Appeal No. 2016-1432
______________________

IN RE: VICTOR GORELIK, TATIANA GORELIK,
NATALIA HANSON,
Appellants

Decided: June 14, 2016
Nonprecedential Opinion
______________________

Please make the following change:

On page 8, lines 1–10, delete:
Indeed, the specification notes that
“[v]arious modifications will become ap-
parent to those skilled in the art after hav-
ing read this disclosure,” and provides an
example modification to the lid, noting
that an “analyzer can be made of several
lids of increasing radiuses . . . .” ’812 Ap-
plication ¶ [0023]. This recognition of an
embodiment with stacked flat lids at min-
imum suggests Gorelik’s proposed defini-
2 IN RE: GORELIK

tion of “hollow cylindrical” is not the
broadest reasonable interpretation con-
sistent with the specification. Instead,
and replace the deleted language with:
“[T]his court has expressly rejected the
contention that if a patent describes only a
single embodiment, the claims of the pa-
tent must be construed as being limited to
that embodiment.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co.
v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). “Even when the specification
describes only a single embodiment, the
claims of the patent will not be read re-
strictively unless the patentee has demon-
strated a clear intention to limit the claim
scope using ‘words or expressions of mani-
fest exclusion or restriction.’” Id. (quoting
Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1327). Because there
is no such disavowal here,