NTP

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Litton et al 11834001 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte VADLAKONDA et al 11620943 - (D) GRIMES 103 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Patent Capital Group - Cisco SHAH, ANTIM G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Teo et al 11333399 - (D) HOUSEL 103 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PARENDO, KEVIN A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2896 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11362943 - (D) GARRIS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CLARK, SHEILA V

2872 Ex Parte Zahniser et al 12695103 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP FINEMAN, LEE A

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 90012250 6908316 10/685,836 WINSOR 103 JONES DAY THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original TA, THO DAC

[W]hen a patentee argues that its claims are entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application, the examiner must undertake a priority analysis to determine if the patentee meets the requirements of § 120. There is no statutory limitation during a reexamination proceeding prohibiting the examiner from conducting a priority analysis. Otherwise, the examiner would be stripped of a critical legal tool needed in performing a proper reexamination. Nothing in §§ 301 et seq. prohibits an examiner from determining whether or not a priority date was properly claimed during the original examination of the application.
In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed Cir. 2011).

[T]here is no presumption that the examiner considered whether the written description of the Parent Application supports the claims . . . simply because the MPEP requires it. Whether the examiner actually considered this issue can only be determined by reviewing the prosecution history. . . . Deciding whether a patent application satisfies § 112 requires a distinct and separate analysis from deciding whether that application satisfies § 120. When an examiner decides whether an application satisfies § 112, the examiner reviews only the application. Deciding whether that same application is entitled to an earlier priority date requires the examiner to determine whether pending claims are supported by the written description of the parent application. 35 U.S.C. § 120.
Id. at 1278.

NTP

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Fillatti et al 11057071 - (D) MILLS 112(4)/103 DENTONS US LLP KUBELIK, ANNE R

“Care[, however,] must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

HARMON 3: 18, 19; MV3: 75; 4: 4; MV18: 143; 19: 7

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Hurd 11562394 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (GEMS) HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2654 Ex Parte Pfaffinger 10476169 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. SUTHERS, DOUGLAS JOHN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Strand 12117162 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 FAY SHARPE LLP LEE, DORIS L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Rhoads et al 10423489 - (D) KUMAR 103 Foley & Lardner LLP STEVENS, ROBERT

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Vacon et al 10807005 - (D) CLEMENTS 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP TURCHEN, JAMES R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Thome et al 11265046 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Boroditsky et al 11513461 - (D) ANDERSON 103 AT & T Legal Department - FKM PAJOOHI GOMEZ, TARA S

kim, greenliant, ergo, katz interactive, NTP, american academy, baxter intern.2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Hikata 10590011 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP HORNING, JOEL G

1721 Ex Parte Goebel et al 10973043 - (D) HANLON 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY VAJDA, PETER L

1782 Ex Parte Fearing et al 11143372 - (D) HOUSEL 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP FROST, ANTHONY J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Eytchison et al 10763701 - (D) HOFF 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP LONG, ANDREA NATAE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte PILKINGTON 12041904 - (D) SCANLON 102 Krieg DeVault LLP SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3766 Ex Parte Moffitt 11752898 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Moyer 11619294 - (D) THOMAS Concurring BOALICK 103 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP SADLER, NATHAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Sohn 11732192 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Kashihara et al 10560244 - (D) THOMAS 103 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC TAMAI, KARL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Ihle 11919917 - (D) PLENZLER 103 112(2)/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION TYLER, CHERYL JACKSON

3781 Ex Parte Schessl et al 10575297 - (D) SAINDON 103 112(1)/102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Karl 12159991 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1786 Ex Parte Burrow et al 11958871 - (D) PRAISS Concurring WARREN 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Watanabe 10716622 - (D) BRANCH 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP HOTELLING, HAROLD A

2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10365098 - (D) COURTENAY 103 IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 William J. McGinnis, Jr AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Chouanard et al 11209290 - (D) BENOIT 101/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK MEANS, JAREN M

2448 Ex Parte Fung et al 11272603 - (D) BRANCH 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy STRANGE, AARON N

2471 Ex Parte Izumi 12858009 - (D) GARRIS 251 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HYUN, SOON D

To decide whether a patentee surrendered certain subject matter, we must determine "whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee's amendment or argument" concerning a particular claim was for reasons of patentability, that is, "to overcome prior art and secure the patent." Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir.2006).

Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. XICOR LLC, 692 F. 3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11062807 - (D) BENOIT 102 MYERS WOLIN, LLC ZEWARI, SAYED T

2648 Ex Parte Nagy 10755814 - (D) GONSALVES 101/103 DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. HUANG, WEN WU

2649 Ex Parte Won et al 11219884 - (D) DIXON 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. CHEN, JUNPENG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Courtney et al 11220162 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2) 103 Patient Practitioners, LLC KANAAN, MAROUN P

“[A] general purpose computer is sufficient structure if the function of a term such as ‘means for processing’ requires no more than merely ‘processing,’ which any general-purpose computer may do without any special programming.” Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation 639 F.3d 1303, 1316-17 (Fed.Cir.2011)).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Gray et al 10791345 - (D) PRATS 102/obviousness-type double patenting JOHNSON & JOHNSON BUI, VY Q

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Becker et al 10564607 - (D) WINSOR 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP SHERWIN, RYAN W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 APPLE, INC. Requester v. ZAPMEDIA SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001144 7020704 09/679,688 WEINBERG 102/103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: TRACY W. DRUCE NOVAK DRUCE + QUIGG LLP FERRIS III, FRED O original PRIETO, BEATRIZ

Our reviewing court, however, has held that “[i]n reexamination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011), quoting In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Baxter Intern., Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that because District Court proceedings and reexamination proceedings in the PTO apply different burdens of proof and rely on different records, the PTO did not err by failing to provide a detailed explanation as to why the PTO came to a different determination than did the court system). We will follow the Federal Circuit’s holding.

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004)  2111,  2111.01


2161 GOOGLE, INC., APPLE, INC., and NAPSTER, INC. Requesters, Respondents v. INTERTAINER, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95000313 6925469 09/947,592 MOHANTY 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP Third Party Requester: Fish & Richardson, PC FERRIS III, FRED O original COBY, FRANTZ

larson, NTP, jasinski, gulack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Jerg et al 10578386 - (D) METZ 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL

1714 Ex Parte Rosenbauer et al 11793937 - (D) TIMM 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WHATLEY, KATELYN B

It is a matter of ordinary skill to remove a feature that is not being used.  As stated in In re Larson, 340 F. 2d 965 (CCPA 1965) "If this additional feature is not desired, it would seem a matter of obvious choice to eliminate it and the function it serves."

Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) 2144.04

1767 Ex Parte Clatty et al 11292193 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC RIOJA, MELISSA A

1787 Ex Parte Hipszki et al 12525821 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HUANG, CHENG YUAN

See In re NTP, INC., 654 F.3d 1279, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It is axiomatic that for anticipation, each and every claim limitation must be explicitly or inherently disclosed in the prior art.” (citations omitted)); cf. In re Jasinski, 2013 WL 563285 at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential) (“The government, however, has failed to establish anticipation. The Adams reference does not disclose verifying the accuracy of logical-to-physical mapping software. Adams merely discloses a BIST routine for detecting errors within a memory device by comparing memory contents with a predetermined bit pattern. The fact that it states that the output of the mapping can be used in additional ‘failure analysis’ is not the same thing as disclosing those additional types of failure analysis.”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 10-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Brydon et al 11132159 - (D) ANDERSON 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. OBERLY, VAN HONG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Widera et al 10507179 - (D) HOFF 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) LIN, WEN TAI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Mueller et al 10348306 - (D) GROSSMAN 102/103 FAY SHARPE LLP CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3652 Ex Parte Prokop 11758816 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (MDMMY) CHIN, PAUL T

3652 Ex Parte Hinds 11581858 - (D) FLOYD 103 DEERE & COMPANY ADAMS, GREGORY W

3672 Ex Parte Wesson et al 11469255 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 MARATHON OIL COMPANY C/O LAW OFFICE OF JACK E. EBEL HUTCHINS, CATHLEEN R

3684 Ex Parte Averill et al 11465901 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY ALTSCHUL, AMBER L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Beutter et al 11473903 - (D) ADAMS 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP BECCIA, CHRISTOPHER J

3775 Ex Parte Farrar et al 10524800 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(1)/102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Henze et al 12659629 - (D) TIMM 102/103 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LEONARD, MICHAEL L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Spahn 11580768 - (D) POTHIER 102 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION SONG, HOON K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Mazumder et al 11668752 - (D) SPAHN 103 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EVANS, GEOFFREY S

3765 Ex Parte Kronenbeger 10910680 - (D) HORNER 103 112(1)/102/103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

c.f., In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386-87 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (reversing a rejection because the printed matter and the circularity of the underlying substrate were interrelated so as to produce a new product).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01

3767 Ex Parte Schnall 11658650 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. BOSWORTH, KAMI A

3767 Ex Parte Muni et al 11355512 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON - ACCLARENT, INC. HALL, DEANNA K

3777 Ex Parte Patch 10800957 - (D) WALSH 103 103 ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (GEMS) CHAO, ELMER M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11908431 - (D) HOUSEL 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. YEE, DEBORAH

1741 Ex Parte Alary et al 11624057 - (D) OBERMANN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J

1776 Ex Parte Hilgren et al 11249557 - (D) PAK 103 ECOLAB USA INC. STELLING, LUCAS A

1789 Ex Parte Alary et al 11469589 - (D) OBERMANN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP GRAY, JILL M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Youden 10943580 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAN, ALVIN H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Bartal et al 11502188 - (D) MORGAN 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP GYORFI, THOMAS A

2443 Ex Parte Uthe 10890022 - (D) BRADEN 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP MIRZA, ADNAN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2877 Ex Parte Drabarek 10591502 - (D) ZECHER 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LYONS, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Barber et al 09903444 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General SHEIKH, ASFAND M

3688 Ex Parte Endler et al 10820832 - (D) PETRAVICK 102 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP WEISS, JOHN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Ziccarelli 11025394 - (D) CAPP 103 C. Paul Maliszewski, P.E. MOHANDESI, JILA M

3767 Ex Parte Jones et al 10738477 - (D) ADAMS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Atala et al 11048097 - (D) JENKS 103 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte KIRCHHEINER et al 12169229 - (R) GARRIS 103 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

NTP, medichem, woodland trust, borden, optivus

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hansen 11/595,141 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/737,124 MACDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Roginsky et al 09/999,643 POTHIER 103(a) Robert V. Wilder EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Thiers et al 10/216,821 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Goicoechea et al 09/977,826 COCKS 112(1) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/172,021 GAUDETTE 112(1) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1736 Ex Parte KURATA et al 12/130,179 GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,659 GAUDETTE 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id. It has long been the case that an inventor’s allegations of earlier invention alone are insufficient—an alleged date of invention must be corroborated. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[E]vidence is assigned probative value and collectively weighed to determine whether reduction to practice has been achieved.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1170. “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Id.

In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,853 GAUDETTE 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/425,647 HOMERE concurring BLANKENSHIP obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
REHEARING

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Giordano et al 12/038,177 KIM 102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).