CAFC affirms PTAB in 55 Brake case

From within In re 55 Brake:



We review the Board’s claim construction de novo if it
is based solely on the intrinsic record. Teva Pharm. USA,
Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 831, 840–41
(2015); In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien, 747 F.3d
1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014). During reexamination, the
Board must give claims their “broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification.” In re Teles,
747 F.3d at 1366 (citing Rambus v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248,
1252 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).


The appellant in 95/001,449 loses:


Having found that the Board correctly construed the
claims of the ’587 patent, we affirm the anticipation and
obviousness determinations. 55 Brake’s challenge is
limited to an argument that the prior art only teaches one
sensor in addition to a vehicle motion sensor.2 Because
we agree that the claims only require two sensors, which
can include a vehicle motion sensor, we see no reason to
disturb the Board’s determinations.



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1554.Opinion.4-9-2015.1.PDF