Samsung Electronics, et. al. v. Dynamics, Inc., No. 2021-2352 (August 2, 2022) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,127,153

Key point(s):
• For purposes of a record for appeal, the Board’s analysis is adequate if one can “reasonably discern that it followed a proper path, even if that path is less than perfectly clear.”

A. O. Smith Corporation et. al. v. Bradford White Corporation, No. 2021-2222_(August 3, 2022) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,375,897

Key point(s):
• During claim construction, terms are not to be “read in isolation.” Instead, “the context of the surrounding words of the claim” and “the entire patent, including the specification,” must be considered.

Thaler v. Vidal, No. 2021-2347_(August 5, 2022) (precedential) (3-0); Application Nos. 16/524,350 and 16/524,532

Key point(s):
• Under US law, an “inventor” must be a natural human being, and an “inventor” cannot be an artificial intelligence, corporation, or other entity.