Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. Squires

Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. Squires The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of "mounted to" as "connected to, either directly or indirectly." Because Ravin did not separately challenge anticipation under that construction, the court affirmed the Board's § 102 unpatentability determination. The decision reinforces that the Board may adopt its own correct claim construction despite a related district-court order, and that surrounding claim language can cabin an otherwise broad ordinary-meaning construction. Affirmed the PTAB's final written decision holding claim 1 of the '015 patent unpatentable as anticipated. The claim required string guides "mounted to" bow limbs and separately "rotatable around" axes; Ravin argued "mounted to" should mean "physically connected to allow only rotation about a fixed axis." The court held Ravin's construction would make the separate "rotatable" limitations superfluous and was not compelled by the specification. The court agreed that "mounted to" can include direct or indirect connections, with the claim's other structural and functional limitations bounding the scope of the connection. The Board did not improperly disregard the related district-court claim-construction order; it considered that order and was free to adopt the construction it found correct. Ravin did not separately contest anticipation by Stanziale under the affirmed construction, so the unpatentability finding stood. § 102 claim construction non-precedential § 102 claim construction non-precedential § 102 claim construction