IN RE STOLLER (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation that captures their characteristic feature

by | Jan 15, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation by the PTO that effectively captures their characteristic feature over other common features. Here, for example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “laminated” was found to require a structure...

IN RE KHAYRALLAH (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Broadest reasonable interpretation of “sub-signal” requires only slight differences between signal versions

by | Dec 9, 2014 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

Absent a narrowing definition in the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “sub-signal” requires only slight differences between signal versions. Here, for example, given a broad description in the specification, the claimed “sub-signal” was...

TEMPO LIGHTING, INC. v. TIVOLI, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Prosecution history in claim interpretation at the PTO & third-party requester cross-appeals

by | Feb 10, 2014 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, [sub] reexamination, Claim Interpretation, PTO Procedure

(1) Prosecution history serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction even “in construing patent claims before the PTO,” such that an “examiner err[s] by resorting to extrinsic evidence that [is] inconsistent with the more reliable intrinsic...