The Patent Trial and Appeal Board applies the broadest reasonable interpretation when construing patent claims. That standard gives the Board latitude, but the Federal Circuit has now made clear that latitude has boundaries. In In re Incept, the court vacated a PTAB obviousness rejection after concluding that the Board’s construction of the term “flow barrier” was unreasonable under BRI.
The decision, covered by Patently-O, does not reject the BRI standard itself. Instead, it holds that the Board’s particular reading of “flow barrier” went too far. The ruling rests on the limits of broad claim construction, reminding the Board that its interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claim language and the record before it.
Because only one source was available, there is no differing reporting to compare. For patent litigants and applicants, the case reinforces that the PTAB cannot rely on BRI to stretch a term beyond a plausible reading. Broadest reasonable interpretation has an outer bound.