CAFC reverses BPAI in IN RE REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY

The CAFC noted

During reexamination, “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Anticipation is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence. Id.


AND

Anticipation is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence. Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d at 1259. A patent claim is anticipated if every limitation is found in a single prior art reference. 35 U.S.C. § 102. We hold that the Board erred by finding that Konig discloses every limitation of claim 25. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable construction of top frame is that it is a struc- ture placed on top of goods. The dissenting Board judge correctly noted, however, that Konig contains no teaching that pallets could be placed on top of goods to stabilize them. Because we hold that the Board lacked substantial evidence that Konig teaches this limitation, we reverse its decision holding that claim 25 was anticipated and remand.