Over 100 years ago, Henry Ford said, “Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.” Ensuring quality by meticulously inspecting work and materials was less complicated when Ford produced a single vehicle model in one color — black. Flash forward to 2020: The Ford Motor Company produced 1.7 million vehicles1 across multiple models […]
Vigilant Aerospace CEO Kraettli L. Epperson has joined the new Tulsa Innovation Labs (TIL) Advanced Aerial Mobility (AAM) Advisory Council. TIL recently announced the...
In this Desktop Central review, we will talk about how this software can change your lives easier. ManageEngine is a company that provides your company...
Today, we are going to review RumbleTalk, a live chat and e-commerce support software for online businesses. We all know that customer satisfaction is a...
Today, we are going to review RumbleTalk, a live chat and e-commerce support software for online businesses.We all know that customer satisfaction is a...
On October 5, 2021, the U.S. Federal Circuit reversed a finding of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for patent claims related to an “artificial valve for repairing a damaged heart valve.” St. Jude Medical LLC (“St. Jude”) filed for an inter partes review (IPR) at the PTAB for U.S. Patent No. 6,821,297, entitled “Artificial Heart Valve, Implantation Instrument and Method Therefor,” owned by Snyders Heart Valve LLC (“Snyders”).
In invalidating the claims, the PTAB interpreted the patent claim limitation of a “frame sized and shaped for insertion between the upstream region and the downstream region.” The PTAB found that the limitation also covers a frame that fits in place after removal of a damaged heart valve. The cited prior art allegedly also disclosed a valve insert sized to fit the valve after the damaged native valve was removed. Therefore, the PTAB found that the prior art anticipated the claims.
The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB erred in determining that the “sized and shaped” limitation “does not require the frame be sized and shaped for insertion into a damaged heart valve,” but “only that the frame is sized and shaped for insertion in a position between the upstream region and the downstream region.” The Federal Circuit reasoned that the PTAB’s construction was incorrect because “it covers frames sized and shaped for installation with the native valve removed, rather than only with the native valve in place.” The Federal Circuit cited language in the patent specification allegedly stressing that the disclosed artificial heart valve can be inserted without removing the native valve, an alleged express improvement on the prior art.
“What would happen if Halo and Portal meet up?” Splitgate happens. That premise has been used to promote this game since the beginning. But why, if it’s a mix between two highly-acclaimed games, then it’s not well-known? Let’s find out. Review: What Is Splitgate: Arena Warfare? Is It Worth It In 2021? As […]
Are you wondering if Destiny is still a good game to play in 2021? Today, we answer the most frequently asked questions about it. Review: What Is Destiny? Is It Worth It In 2021? After a long time since Halo, Bungie developed Destiny, an online-only, multiplayer first-person shooter game, priorly published worldwide by […]
