Yufa v.TSI, Inc., No. 2014-1539, January 26, 2015 (nonprecedential) (Patent No.: 6,346,983)

Key point(s):

• An issue may be heard on appeal for the first time if new legislation was passed; there was a change in the jurisprudence of the reviewing court; the issue is properly before the court; or under certain circumstances when a party appeared pro se before the lower court.

Plas-Pak Industries, Inc., v. Sulzer Mixpac Ag, No. 2014-1447, January 27, 2015 (nonprecedential) (Patent 7,815,384)

Key point(s):

• Combinations of references that change the basic principles under which the prior art was designed to operate, or that render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose, may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness.

In re Kevin r. Imes., No. 2014-1206, January 29, 2015 (precedential) (3-0) (Patent Appln. Ser. No. 09/874,423)

Key point(s):

• If a term is defined in the specification, the PTO cannot adopt a broader “reasonable” interpretation of the term.