CAFC reverses PTAB in D'Agostino v. Mastercard

The bottom line:


Because the Board’s decisions rest on
an unreasonable claim interpretation, we vacate the
decisions and remand for further proceedings.



Note text


Because the decisive aspect of the Board’s reasoning is
contrary to the claim as reasonably construed, we need not
and do not discuss other statements made by the Board
en route to its conclusion, some of which MasterCard
declines to defend



Footnote 1 observes:


MasterCard also has correctly declined to
defend the Board’s apparent under-
standing of Mr. D’Agostino’s
remarks about scenarios
involving Target and McDonald’s made
in the imprecise back-and-forth
discussion at oral argument before the
Board.



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1592.Opinion.12-20-2016.1.PDF