{"id":1829,"date":"2017-10-11T11:20:30","date_gmt":"2017-10-11T15:20:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1829"},"modified":"2017-11-25T11:39:41","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T16:39:41","slug":"the-board-misses-the-bri-with-a-construction-that-was-too-narrow","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1829","title":{"rendered":"The Board Misses the BRI with a Construction that was too Narrow"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp.<\/a>, [2016-2613] (October 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB decision that the challenged claims of\u00a0U.S. Patent No.\u00a08,137,757, which describes and claims methods for printing\u00a0nail tabs or reinforcement strips on roofing or building\u00a0cover material, were not obvious.<\/p>\n

On appeal Owens Corning argued that\u00a0the Board effectively treated
\nthe \u201croofing or building cover material\u201d in the claims as limited to\u00a0material that either has been or would be coated or saturated\u00a0with asphalt or asphalt mix, and that this limited construction was incorrect under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit noted that that\u00a0the\u00a0Board construed the claim term \u201croofing or building cover\u00a0material\u201d to mean \u201cbase substrate materials such as dry\u00a0felt, fiberglass mat, and\/or polyester mat, before coating\u00a0or saturation with asphalt or asphalt mix, and asphalt\u00a0coated or saturated substrates such as tar paper and\u00a0saturated felt.\u201d While the Board correctly noted that this construction \u201cdoes not\u00a0require an asphalt-coated substrate,\u201d\u00a0when evaluating Owens Corning\u2019s arguments regarding
\nmotivation to combine and reasonable expectation of\u00a0success, the Board made clear its understanding of its\u00a0construction, and hence of the claims, as requiring materials\u00a0that would eventually be coated with asphalt even if
\nthey had not already been coated before printing.<\/p>\n

After reviewing the Board’s rationale, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board simply did not address roofing or building\u00a0cover materials that would never be coated in asphalt, and this was a mistake.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit concluded that the correct broadest reasonable construction of \u201croofing or building cover material\u201d would\u00a0include materials that neither have been nor are to be\u00a0coated or saturated with asphalt or asphalt mix.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit found that it was not necessary or appropriate to remand the case, however.\u00a0\u00a0On the evidence and arguments\u00a0presented to the Board, there is only one possible\u00a0evidence-supported finding: the Board\u2019s rejection of Owens\u00a0Corning\u2019s challenge, when the correct construction is\u00a0employed, is not supported by substantial evidence.\u00a0 Moreover, Fastfelt did not argue for remand.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit reviewed the record and concluded that the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness.<\/p>\n

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

In Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp., [2016-2613] (October 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB decision that the challenged claims of\u00a0U.S. Patent No.\u00a08,137,757, which describes and claims methods for printing\u00a0nail tabs or reinforcement strips on roofing or building\u00a0cover … 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":[22,7,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bri","category-claim-constructino","category-inter-partes-review"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829","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=1829"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1830,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829\/revisions\/1830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}