Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation by the PTO that effectively captures their characteristic feature over other common features. Here, for example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “laminated” was found to require a structure that is more specifically “fused, bonded, pressed, or adhered together into a unitary structure” rather than only generally being “formed from several layers.” This would be a good case to consult and cite in response to an overly broad interpretation espoused by the PTO.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from rejection at the PTO is directed to a multilayered winter turf cover for a golf green. The claims recite the cover as having a “laminated” structure between the layers, which is alleged to provide increased moisture protection, easier removal, and increased durability. The prior art discloses a turf cover constructed from two separate covers that are fastened together by stringing nylon loops through a series of grommets around the cover’s perimeter.
Issue(s): Whether the broadest reasonable interpretation of “laminated” requires a structure that is more specifically “fused, bonded, pressed, or adhered together into a unitary structure” as compared to the prior art, which is only generally “formed from several layers.”
Holding(s): Yes. “We hold that the Patent Office erred in construing ‘laminated’ to require only layering, such that it encompasses [the prior art’s] perimeter-tied covers. Much like [the prior art’s] cover, a scarecrow’s shirt includes two layers of material sewn together at the perimeter with straw stuffed between them. Under the Patent Office’s construction the front and back of the scarecrow’s shirt would be laminated. This is not within the ambit of the broadest reasonable construction.”