## Facts

- PPC owned a patent directed to coaxial cable connectors that maintain electrical grounding continuity using a “continuity member.”
- Claim 10 (the independent claim at issue) required a continuity member that “resides around” the connector body and provides an electrical connection between the post and the nut in an unassembled state.
- Corning petitioned for inter partes review challenging claims 10–25 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations including Killion and Shindo.
- Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, the PTAB construed “reside around” to mean “in the immediate vicinity of; near.”
- Based on that construction, the PTAB found the prior art taught the continuity member and held claims 10–25 unpatentable as obvious.
- PPC appealed, arguing the specification used “around” to require that the continuity member encircle or surround the body, not merely be near it.

## Issues

1. Whether, under BRI, the PTAB reasonably construed the claim phrase “reside around” as “in the immediate vicinity of; near,” consistent with the specification.
2. Whether the PTAB’s obviousness determination could stand where it depended on an overly broad claim construction.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s final written decision and remanded.
- The court held the PTAB’s construction of “reside around” as “near” was not the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
- The court concluded that, in context, “reside around” required the continuity member to “encircle or surround” the connector body.
- Because the unpatentability finding turned on the incorrect construction, the court did not resolve obviousness on the merits and directed the PTAB to reconsider under the corrected construction.

## Legal Principles

- In PTO proceedings, BRI must remain reasonable in light of the specification and the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
- Dictionary definitions may inform claim meaning, but they cannot override the patent’s consistent usage and depictions in the intrinsic record.
- When the specification repeatedly describes an “around” relationship as sleeve-like and encircling, construing “around” as merely “near” is impermissibly broad.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that even under BRI the PTAB must anchor claim construction in the specification, vacating and remanding because “reside around” required an encircling continuity member and the obviousness ruling rested on an overbroad “near” interpretation.


PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016)