The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO must be consistent with the subspecies of the element at issue as disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, a table with rollers attached thereto was found to fall outside of the claimed “vehicle” element because the specification identified only commercial transportation vehicles as exemplary forms of such a vehicle. “[I]t stretches the bounds of any reasonable interpretation to say that, by virtue of those facts, the table is a ‘vehicle.’” This would be a good case to consult and cite in response to an overly broad interpretation asserted by the PTO that is inconsistent with the kind of subspecies disclosed in the specification.
Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from rejection at the PTO during reexamination is directed to a dimension detection device for obtaining the dimensions of an article or product on board a “material handling vehicle.” The patent defines the term “material handling vehicle” to “broadly include transportation vehicles such as, for example, but not limited to, a fork lift truck, a flatbed truck, or a pallet truck.” The prior art discloses a table fitted with rollers having a system equipped with scales which serves as a dimensioning device to measure the characteristics of an object.
Issue(s): Whether the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of the term “material handling vehicle” encompasses a table with fitted rollers as disclosed in the prior art.
Holding(s): No. “The [] patent identifies only commercial transportation vehicles as exemplary forms of a ‘material handling vehicle.’ Although the term ‘broadly’ suggests the patent encompasses a wide range of devices which can be considered vehicles, the attachment of a roller to a table [as in the prior art], without more, does not render the table a vehicle in light of the subspecies of material handling transportation vehicles identified in the [] patent. … The inclusion of rollers makes movement easier (the table need not be lifted); and the movement can take place with items on the table. However, it stretches the bounds of any reasonable interpretation to say that, by virtue of those facts, the table is a ‘vehicle.’ If this court were to adopt the Board’s interpretation, any object capable of holding items and made more easily movable by attachment of rollers, would constitute a vehicle, irrespective of the fact that the object is primarily intended to be stationary. Such a reading would render the claim language of the [] patent overly broad. Therefore, even under the most expansive construction rubric, such an interpretation is unreasonable and inconsistent with the specification of the [] patent.”