This case addresses how broadly an Examiner can interpret an Applicant’s claims during prosecution while still providing a reasonably broad interpretation, and at what point a reasonably broad interpretation becomes a legally incorrect interpretation. 

 
 In a prior appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (hereinafter “Board”), the Board held that a reinforcing support structure of the Buff patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,503,062) anticipated a wire chafing stand recited in claim 1 of the Skvorecz patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,996,948). The Board alleged that claim 1 could be construed to include wire legs without offsets, even though claim 1 recited that each wire leg has an offset because of the use of the open-ended term, “comprising.” The Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Board and held that the transitional term “comprising” does not render a claim anticipated by a device that contains less than what is claimed. 

 
 Claim 1 of the Skvorecz patent relates to a wire chafing stand comprising “a plurality of offsets located either in said upright sections of said wire legs or in said first rim for laterally displacing each wire leg relative to said first rim to facilitate the nesting of a multiplicity of stands into one another without significant wedging.” During the reissue examination of the Skvorecz patent, the Examiner rejected the wire chafing stand as being anticipated by a reinforcing support structure of the Buff patent. 

 

 The reinforcing support structure of the Buff patent contains a bottom support to the structure consisting of both transverse members 48 and longitudinal members 49, as illustrated below. The structure also contains shoulders 52 that receive a support rim 44, and may arguably displace members 49 laterally. 

 
 On appeal, the Board made two assertions in upholding the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of the Skvorecz patent. First, the Board alleged that the wire chafing stand was anticipated by the Buff patent because of the open-ended transition term “comprising” and the wire legs of claim 1 of the Skvorecz patent could be broadly interpreted to include legs without offsets. Secondly, the Board alleged that even when interpreting claim 1 of the Skvorecz patent so that every leg contains an offset, the Buff patent still anticipates claim 1 because member 49 is offset by shoulders 52. Thus, it appears that either way, the Board was trying to provide a rationale for interpreting only the members 49 as wire legs, despite the fact that the Buff patent disclosed reinforcing the support structure by both members 48 and 49. 

 

 In reversing the Board’s decision, the Federal Circuit held that both members 48 and 49 of the Buff patent provide the bottom support which is analogous to the wire legs of the Skvorecz patent, and it is undisputed that member 48 of the Buff patent does not have an offset. 

 
 With regard to the Board’s interpretation of the meaning of comprising, the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not correctly construe the term “comprising.” The Federal Circuit explained that “comprising” means that the device may contain elements in addition to those explicitly mentioned in the claim. Therefore, the Board erred in holding that some of the wire legs of the Skvorecz device need not have an offset (i.e. members 48) when the claims state that each wire leg (i.e.  members 48 and 49) has an offset. 

 

 With regard to the Board’s second allegation that member 49 of the Buff patent is offset by shoulder 52, the Federal Circuit reiterated that when giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, Examiners should not give claims a legally incorrect interpretation. 

 

 The term “comprising” does not render the claim anticipated by a device that contains less, rather than more, than what is claimed. Based on this understanding, the Federal Circuit held that member 48 does not have an offset. 

 
 Therefore, the structure of the Buff patent does not have an offset located in each member that serves as leg to support the structure.