In re Incept LLC

In re Incept LLC The Federal Circuit held that the Board applied an unreasonably broad construction of “flow barrier” under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard. Because that erroneous construction drove the Board’s conclusion that the only difference from the prior art was the taper-angle limitation, the court vacated the obviousness ruling and remanded. Even in prosecution, the PTAB’s broadest reasonable interpretation must track the specification and cannot read a sealing/flow-barrier limitation so broadly that it covers any solid structure in the general claimed location. Vacated and remanded. Claim 1 recited a catheter strain relief member with ridges, each forming a “flow barrier” between the catheter outer surface and the top of the ridge, plus a specified taper-angle limitation. The Board adopted the examiner’s construction under which the “flow barrier” could be any solid structure positioned within the claimed location. The Federal Circuit rejected that construction, reading the claim and specification to require a solid surface spanning from the catheter outer surface to the top of the ridge along the circumference at the ridge. Because the Board’s § 103 analysis assumed that Thomspon Smith disclosed all claimed structure except the taper angle, the incorrect claim construction impaired the obviousness analysis. The court did not decide obviousness on the merits and remanded for the Board to assess patentability under the Federal Circuit’s construction. § 103 claim construction remand non-precedential § 103 claim construction remand non-precedential claim construction § 103 remand