Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01432/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01432-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tatiana Gorelik
Appellant
Victor Gorelik
Appellant
Natalia Hanson
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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Nonprecedential Opinion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 apparent to those skilled in the art after having 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 Application ¶ [0023]. This recognition of an 

embodiment with stacked flat lids at minimum suggests Gorelik’s proposed definiCase: 16-1432 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2016
2 IN RE: GORELIK

tion of “hollow cylindrical” is not the 

broadest reasonable interpretation consistent 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 patent 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 restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim 

scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Id. (quoting 

Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1327). Because there 

is no such disavowal here,

Case: 16-1432 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2016