CAFC writes about "scoop of the invention"

Startled by the scoop? Or frightened by the new definition of Lewis acid?

Page 4 of the non-precedential decision in Akeva v. Adidas states: Of course, the absence of an embodiment does not necessarily exclude that embodiment from the scoop of the invention, citing to Liebel-Flarscheim 353 F.3d 898.

One also has the text: An inventor cannot get more than he or she invents.
IPBiz notes: except under current foreseeability rules in the doctrine of equivalents.

The CAFC cites to SciMed v. Advanced Cardiovascular, 242 F.3d 1337. There is also some discussion of claim construction using different patents, with the CAFC citing Microsoft, 357 F.3d 1340.