{"id":1358,"date":"2016-12-23T09:33:07","date_gmt":"2016-12-23T14:33:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1358"},"modified":"2016-12-23T09:33:07","modified_gmt":"2016-12-23T14:33:07","slug":"broadest-reasonable-interpretation-does-not-include-legally-incorrect-interpretation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1358","title":{"rendered":"Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Does Not Include Legally Incorrect Interpretation"},"content":{"rendered":"

In D\u2019Agostino v. Mastercard International, Inc.<\/em>, [2016-1592, 2016-1593] (December 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision in two inter partes<\/em> reviews that the challenged claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,840,486 and\u00a08,036,988 were\u00a0unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness, because the decisions rested on unreasonable claim constructions.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit noted that Board applies the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes<\/em> review, but said that this does not include giving\u00a0claims a legally incorrect interpretation. \u00a0At issue was the interpretation of the<\/p>\n

b) receiving a request from said account\u00a0holder for a transaction code to make a\u00a0purchase within a payment category that\u00a0at least limits transactions to a single\u00a0merchant, said single merchant limitation\u00a0being included in said payment category\u00a0prior to any particular merchant being\u00a0identified as said single merchant;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit found that it was critical that the\u00a0\u201csingle merchant\u201d must not be identified to the authorizing\u00a0entity at that time of the request: “The single-merchant limitation thus requires, simply,\u00a0that, when the transaction code is requested, the request
\nlimits the number of authorized merchants to one but\u00a0does not then identify the merchant, such identification\u00a0occurring only later.”<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit the found that the Board either departed from or misapplied the \u00a0clear meaning when of the claim, whether as a matter of claim\u00a0construction or as a matter of application to the prior art, when it concluded that\u00a0the claim\u00a0covers a situation in\u00a0which the customer first seeks a transaction code for an\u00a0identified \u201cchain of stores\u201d and, later, picks a specific store\u00a0within that chain. The Federal Circuit found that this was contrary to the requirement that at the time the transaction code is requested, the request\u00a0does not identify the merchant. \u00a0The only way the Board could be correct was if “single merchant” and “particular merchant” had different meanings, which under the circumstance was not correct.<\/p>\n

Because the\u00a0decisive aspect of the Board\u2019s reasoning is contrary to the\u00a0claim as reasonably construed, we need not and do not
\ndiscuss other statements made by the Board en route to
\nits conclusion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In D\u2019Agostino v. Mastercard International, Inc., [2016-1592, 2016-1593] (December 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision in two inter partes reviews that the challenged claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,840,486 and\u00a08,036,988 were\u00a0unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness, because the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bri","category-inter-partes-review"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1358"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1358\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1360,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1358\/revisions\/1360"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}