PTO Must Give Claims Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

In re Buszard, [2006-1489](September 27, 2007)[NEWMAN, Friedman, Prost] The Federal Circuit reversed a BPAI decision holding all of the claims unpatentable as anticipated.
SIGNIFICANCE: The PTO should give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, not simply their broadest interpretation.
BRIEF: The claims of the application contained the limitation "a flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture." The BPAI held the claims anticipated by the Eling et al. reference which disclosed a flexible foam made by crushing the rigid foam, in contrast to the claimed invention, which directly produced a flexible foam. A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference. Bruszard argued that the claimed flexible foam was different from a flexible foam of the reference which was simply a rigid foam crushed into small particles, and that this difference is readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The PTO argued that the words in the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and Bruszard responded that the PTO's interpretation was not reasonable. The Federal Circuit agreed with Bruszard that it is not a reasonable claim construction to equate "flexible" with "rigid" or to equate crushed rigid polyurethane foam with a flexible polyurethane foam, and reversed and remanded.