The Federal Circuit disagreed. The court noted that “[t]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.” Slip op. 5 (ellipses in original). “[C]laims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent . . . .” Id. Based on the specification and statements in the prosecution history, the court found that the PTAB departed from the “clear meaning” of “single merchant,” which describes a numerical limitation that limits use to only one merchant rather than describing the identity of the merchant. The court thus found that Cohen, which identified only a specific store instead of the number, did not disclose the claim limitation, and the court vacated the PTAB’s construction and unpatentability findings.
D’Agostino v. MasterCard Int’l Inc., 2016-1592, 2016-1593 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)