I see HTC’s consistent, separate presentation with respect to claim 1 and claim 24 and HTC’s reliance on the same argument that it had presented to the Board as sufficient to provide “fair notice to the initial tribunal and to the opposing party.” Maj. Op. 984. This is simply a situation in which the appellant has made a single and overly broad argument — that a separate diverting unit is not required — for both the method claims and the device claims. In my view, this argument is correct as to the method claims and incorrect as to the device claims. Under these circumstances, I see no forfeiture. In similar circumstances in the past, we have held that the appellant wins in part and loses in part. See, e.g., Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>); Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 227
holding that a priorart reference anticipated claims 14 and 7 but not claims 8 9 and 13 because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims holding claimant did not have to segregate fees between fraud and contract claims because both claims were based on the same set of facts and circumstances holding that claim preclusion applies to small claims court adjudication and that judicial economy is not served by encouraging resolution of property claims in small claims court and other claims in district court holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims