In In re Incept LLC, No. 2025-1900 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 17, 2026), a panel of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Cunningham, and District Judge Kovner (E.D.N.Y., sitting by designation) decided the appeal per curiam. The opinion is nonprecedential. Costs were awarded to Incept. The appeal is from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Application No. 16/886,099 (Ex parte Bean, Appeal No. 2024-003619).

The claim and the rejection

The '099 application is titled Anchoring Strain Relief Member. Claim 1 is directed to a medical catheter with a hub and an anchoring strain relief member whose sealing portion has ridges, each ridge forming a "flow barrier" between the catheter outer surface along a circumference at the ridge and the top of that ridge, with taper limits on the sealing portion. The examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious over Thomspon Smith. The Board affirmed, treating the "flow barrier" limitation as reading on any solid structure between those points and treating taper angle as the only structural difference from the reference.

Holding on claim construction

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the Board's construction. Reading the claim language with the specification, the court construed a "flow barrier" as a solid surface that spans from the catheter outer surface to the top of the ridge along a circumference at the ridge location - a structure capable of blocking flow along that path, not merely any solid in between. Broadest reasonable interpretation still must be consistent with the specification.

Disposition

Because the Board's obviousness analysis rested on the incorrect construction - including the premise that taper angle was the only remaining difference - the court vacated and remanded for a new patentability analysis under the corrected construction. It did not reach the Board's obviousness conclusion on the merits.

What it means for prosecution and appeals

An obviousness affirmance built on a flawed claim construction will not stand even when the dispute looks like a dimensions-only fight. Parties contesting BRI should tie the disputed phrase to the specification's functional description, as Incept did with "flow barrier."

What to watch next

Watch the Board's remand decision on claim 1 under the corrected "flow barrier" construction, and any further appeal if rejection is maintained.