Embodiment of figure is within claim scope
The CAFC cited Phillips (citing Innova/Pure v. Safari, 381 F.3d 1111), went on to
Verizon v. Vonage, 503 F.3d 1295, and concluded:
We conclude that the embodiment in Figure 3 was improperly excluded from the scope of claim 1. See MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting claim construction that would exclude embodiments illustrated in the drawings); Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgmt., LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1353-55 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (rejecting claim construction that "excluded embodiments disclosed in the specification" including embodiments in the drawings); Vanderlande Industries Nederland BV v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (declining to limit the term "glide surface" to a specific embodiment where the descriptive text includes other embodiments).
An IPS argument on "plain meaning" was rejected.
****In passing there is a plain meaning to "Repo Express" / "ONE STOP SHOPPING for homebuyers and investors" (Coshow Real Estate Group )
CBS national news on 1/30 discussed bus tours in San Diego touring foreclosed properties. "Repo Express." Prof. Frank Alexander of Emory got to make some comments. Hope Now was also mentioned.