Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1611

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: BLUE BUFFALO ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Appellant
______________________
2024-1611
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 17 /136,152.
______________________
Decided: January 14, 2026
______________________
B. D ELANO J ORDAN, Jordan IP Law, LLC, Silver Spring,
MD, argued for appellant. Also represented by EVERETT G.
D IEDERIKS , J R., N ICHOLAS SPENCER WHITELAW , Diederiks
& Whitelaw, PLC, Woodbridge, VA.
MONICA BARNES L ATEEF , Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
gued for appellee John A. Squires. Also represented by
S HEHLA WYNNE.
______________________
Case: 24-1611 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

IN RE: BLUE BUFFALO ENTERPRISES, INC. 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, T ARANTO, Circuit Judge, and
CHUN, District Judge.1
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc. (Blue Buffalo) appeals a
decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) af-
firming an examiner’s rejection of certain claims of U.S. Pa-
tent Application No. 17/136,152 as obvious. Because the
Board did not err in construing “configured to” or “config-
ured for,” we affirm the Board’s decision.
BACKGROUND
The ’152 application discloses a packaging container
for wet pet food. J.A. 27–28. The container includes a stor-
age area with deformable side walls allowing food to be
pushed out of the container. Id. The bottom wall of the
container includes a tool portion with projections for break-
ing up or tenderizing the food. Id. Claim 1 is representa-
tive:
1. A packaged food product comprising:
a container including at least one sidewall and a bot-
tom wall which combine to define a storage area, said
bottom wall having an integrally formed, tool portion;
and
a food product retained within the storage area and in
contact with the at least one sidewall, wherein the at
least one sidewall is configured to be readily deforma-
ble by a hand of a user to reduce a volume of the storage
area, and the packaged food product is configured such
that reducing the volume of the storage area causes the
food product to exit the storage area for further
1 Honorable John H. Chun, District Judge, United
States District Court for the Western District of Washing-
ton, sitting by designation.
Case: 24-1611 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

IN RE: BLUE BUFFALO ENTERPRISES, INC. 3
processing with the tool portion, wherein the tool por-
tion includes a plurality of spaced projections config-
ured for use in breaking up and/or tenderizing the food
product after the food product is removed from the stor-
age area.
The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 3–12 based on Coleman2 and other prior art references,
designating its affirmance as a new ground of rejection be-
cause it relied on facts and reasoning not raised by the Ex-
aminer. J.A. 2–13. Blue Buffalo appeals. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Board’s claim construction de novo. In
re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Blue Buffalo argues the Board erred in construing the
“configured to” and “configured for”3 claim language as
merely “capable of” performing the recited function. Blue
Buffalo Br. 13–16. In Blue Buffalo’s view, “claim language
that employs ‘configured to’ type language should be inter-
preted to cover devices that are specifically designed to per-
form the stated function.” Id. at 15. Based on this
construction, Blue Buffalo argues the Board reversibly
erred in finding Coleman teaches the claimed sidewall and
tool portion. Id. at 13–14, 17–20. We do not agree.
Blue Buffalo primarily relies on In re Giannelli, 739
F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Mar-
chon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) as sup-
port for its argument that “configured to” should be
2 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0089583.
3 Blue Buffalo does not distinguish between “config-
ured for” and “configured to” and primarily refers to “con-
figured to” in its brief. Blue Buffalo Br. 17–21.
Case: 24-1611 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

IN RE: BLUE BUFFALO ENTERPRISES, INC. 4
construed as “specifically designed to.” Blue Buffalo
Br. 13–16. Both cases are distinguishable. In Giannelli
and Aspex Eyewear, we construed the term “adapted to,”
not “configured to” or “configured for,” which are at issue
here. Gianelli, 739 F.3d at 1379; Aspex Eyewear, 672 F.3d
at 1349. We also adopted a narrower construction in both
cases based on context provided by the claim language and
written description suggesting that the narrower construc-
tion was correct. In Giannelli, we explained that for a
claim reciting a rowing machine with handles “adapted to”
be moved by a user pulling on the handles, “the written de-
scription makes clear that ‘adapted to’ . . . has a narrower
meaning . . . that the claimed machine is designed or con-
structed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling
force is exerted on the handles.” 739 F.3d at 1379. In Aspex
Eyewear, we adopted the narrower construction of
“adapted to” for a claim reciting “magnetic members
adapted to extend across respective side portions of a pri-
mary spectacle frame” because the specification suggested
the magnetic members were meant to actually engage with
the frame. 672 F.3d at 1349–50. Further, another claim
recited “capable of,” suggesting that “adapted to” was in-
tended to have a different meaning. Id. at 1349. Here,
Blue Buffalo points to nothing in the claims or written de-
scription suggesting that “configured to” should be con-
strued more narrowly than “capable of.” Oral Arg. at 8:55–
9:31 (citing J.A. 31–32 (¶¶ 18–20)). The specification’s dis-
closures of the sidewall that is “readily deformable” and the
projections that allow the tool portion to “break up and/or
tenderize food product” are consistent with the Board’s con-
struction. J.A. 31–32 (¶¶ 18–20). Unlike in Giannelli and
Aspex Eyewear, these disclosures do not suggest that the
sidewall or tool portion are specifically designed or con-
structed to achieve a certain objective—only that they are
capable of doing so. We see no error in the Board’s
Case: 24-1611 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

IN RE: BLUE BUFFALO ENTERPRISES, INC. 5
construction of “configured to” and “configured for” in claim
1 as meaning “capable of.”4
CONCLUSION
We have considered Blue Buffalo’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Because the Board did
not err in its constructions of “configured to” and “config-
ured for,” we affirm the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
4 Blue Buffalo admits it does not challenge the
Board’s obviousness determination under the “capable of”
construction. Oral Arg. at 15:50–16:10.
Case: 24-1611 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 5 of 5 --