• Case: In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364 (2007)
• Facts: Buszard invented a flame retardant composition that forms flexible polyurethane foam. There was a prior reference by Eling that was a composition that prepares rigid foam. The PTO said that the Eling reference encompassed Buszard’s claim, and this meant that Buszard could not get a patent.
• Procedural Posture: Buszard filed for a patent, but the PTO rejected Buszard’s claims. Buszard appealed to the Fed. Cir.
• Arguments: Buszard argued that the Eling reference only shows how to make a rigid polyurethane foam mixture, and that Buszard’s flexible foam is different than Eling’s rigid foam mixture. The PTO argues that using a broad interpretation, Eling’s reference encompasses Buszard’s claims.
• Court: Rejection under Section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference. Buszard’s flexible foam claim was not anticipated by Eling’s claim for rigid foam.
• Reasoning: The Eling reference describes only a rigid foam reaction that produces a rigid product. The PTO argued that rigid foam can become flexible when crushed, but the court rejects this argument. The court agrees with Buszard that it is not a reasonable claim interpretation to equate "flexible" with "rigid," or to equate a crushed rigid polyurethane foam with a flexible polyurethane foam.
• Facts: Buszard invented a flame retardant composition that forms flexible polyurethane foam. There was a prior reference by Eling that was a composition that prepares rigid foam. The PTO said that the Eling reference encompassed Buszard’s claim, and this meant that Buszard could not get a patent.
• Procedural Posture: Buszard filed for a patent, but the PTO rejected Buszard’s claims. Buszard appealed to the Fed. Cir.
• Arguments: Buszard argued that the Eling reference only shows how to make a rigid polyurethane foam mixture, and that Buszard’s flexible foam is different than Eling’s rigid foam mixture. The PTO argues that using a broad interpretation, Eling’s reference encompasses Buszard’s claims.
• Court: Rejection under Section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference. Buszard’s flexible foam claim was not anticipated by Eling’s claim for rigid foam.
• Reasoning: The Eling reference describes only a rigid foam reaction that produces a rigid product. The PTO argued that rigid foam can become flexible when crushed, but the court rejects this argument. The court agrees with Buszard that it is not a reasonable claim interpretation to equate "flexible" with "rigid," or to equate a crushed rigid polyurethane foam with a flexible polyurethane foam.