PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Inconsistent examples in the specification facilitate invalidity at the PTO without additional protection

by | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Minor but inconsistent examples in the specification may facilitate invalidity by broadening claim interpretation at the PTO so as to bring in additional prior art without necessarily broadening the scope of patent protection. Here, for example, although the...

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Previous judicial interpretation of a claim term should be treated as persuasive precedent by PTO

by | Aug 12, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Where the principal argument to the PTO about the proper interpretation of a claim term is consistent with a previous judicial interpretation, the PTO is obligated to acknowledge that interpretation and assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable...

ACME SCALE COMPANY, INC. v. LTS SCALE COMPANY, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Broadest reasonable interpretation must be consistent with the subspecies disclosed in the specification

by | Jun 10, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO must be consistent with the subspecies of the element at issue as disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, a table with rollers attached thereto was found to fall outside of the claimed...

IN RE HOLNESS (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A claim term may be given its plain meaning when the specification does not limit its form or structure

by | May 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

A claim term may be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning when the specification does not place any restriction on its form or structure. Here, for example, a “timer” was found to encompass gears in the prior art that control a...

ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Broadest reasonable interpretation cannot be inconsistent with proper operation of the disclosed embodiments

by | Mar 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

A broadest reasonable interpretation asserted by the PTO cannot be inconsistent with proper operation of the embodiments disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, because the specification made clear that a new instruction must replace another instruction at...

IN RE IMES (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Broadest reasonable interpretation rubric cannot focus solely on a literal interpretation of claim terms

by | Jan 29, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO cannot ignore characteristic features of claim terms in favor of a purely literal interpretation of those terms. Here, for example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “wireless” communication...