Opinion ID: 675261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: 70 Because Dr. Freeman had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue of the meaning of the term buoyant uplift, an issue actually decided in the district court and essential to the finding of noninfringement in that action, application of issue preclusion is appropriate here. Additionally, because there are no circumstances precluding application of the doctrine, we agree with the Board that the claims are limited to IOLs with at least neutral buoyancy. As the amendments to claims 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 21 impermissibly broaden the scope of these claims, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 305. The decision of the Board is affirmed. 71 AFFIRMED.