CAFC discusses meaning of "laminate" in IN RE JAMES E. STOLLER

IN RE JAMES E. STOLLER
includes the text:



The parties’ dispute on appeal centers on the con-
struction of “laminated.”
Mr. Stoller argues that the broadest reasonable construction of laminated is
“fused, bonded, pressed, or adhered together into a unitary structure.”
The Patent Office argues that the Board
correctly construed the term as describing a “structure
formed from several layers.”
We review the Patent Office’s construction de novo.
Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d
1248, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2013).



The CAFC mentions a scarecrow's shirt in finding
that the Patent Office went beyond the broadest resasonable
interpretation:


We hold that the Patent Office erred in construing
“laminated” to require only layering, such that it
encompasses Sibbet’s perimeter-tied covers.
Much like Sibbet’s
cover, a scarecrow’s shirt includes two layers of material
sewn together at the perimeter with straw stuffed be-
tween them. Under the Patent Office’s
construction the front and back of the scarecrow’s shirt would be lamina
ted. This is not within the ambit of the broadest reasona-
ble construction.