optical fibers or particularly describe their characteristics. It is not enough, Cardiogenesis asserts, to point to a specific product instead of describing its characteristics because the product may cease to be commercially available. Cardiogenesis fails to grasp, however, that the patents-in-suit describe a more effective way to transmit laser energy to a surgical site using existing fiber optic technology. They do not purport to invent a new kind of fiber and thus need not describe the process for making it. CardioFocus must show only that an ordinary person skilled in the art would be able to identify a fiber with low hydroxyl content, not that the person would be able to reproduce that fiber. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1338-39 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d
holding that a completed term of confinement did not render a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence moot where defendant could receive a reduced term of supervised release holding that use of term black box did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry holding that an additional term did not materially alter the contract because the plaintiff cannot profess to be surprised by an additional term in an invoice when the price quotation contained the identical term holding that a claim was not indefinite for using the term selector because it was a standard component and its structure was well known in the art holding that detector is a sufficiently definite structural term to preclude the application of 112  6 even though the detector was defined in terms of its function because the term detector refers to a wellknown structure for those knowledgeable in the art