broadest reasonable interpretation

When an Examiner Can Use a Dictionary: Guidance from In Re Smith International

In In Re Smith International, the Federal Circuit stated that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must be consistent with the specification, as discussed in a previous post.  So does that have any effect on th… Read More

Coffin Patent Lives on after IPR

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that the claim language “form a casket body” was a structural limitation, not an intended use, and affirmed the final written decision of PTAB finding that th… Read More

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Has Limits

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) recently put the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on notice that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims… Read More

Must Examiners Now Cite the Specification to Support Broadest Reasonable Interpretation?

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board applied In Re: Smith Int’l to limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language in Ex parte David Ben Yair (Appeal 2017-002190, decided Jan. 10, 2018).  In this case, the claim i… Read More

CAFC: “Reciprocate” and “Translate” are not Distinct Motions

In Smith & Nephew, Covidien v. Hologic, (Fed. Cir., 2018) the CAFC interpreted the claim phrase “simultaneously rotate, translate, and reciprocate” such that reciprocating includes a translating motion, but is not necessar… Read More

CAFC: “Injection Molded” is not Product-by-Process

In In Re: Nordt Development Co., the CAFC vacated the Board’s finding that the claim term “injection molded” was a product-by-process limitation that was not afforded patentable weight.  Claim 1 includes many instances of … Read More

Improper Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Led to Finding of Nonobviousness

In Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corporation (decided October 11, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that obviousness was not proven in an inter parte revie… Read More

CAFC Requires Broadest Reasonable Interpretation to Correspond to Inventor’s Description in Spec

In In Re: Smith International, Inc., the CAFC held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must correspond with what and how the inventor describes the invention in the specification.  In this case, the CAFC h… Read More

CAFC Rejects PTAB’s Interpretation of “Lateral, Trans-Psoas Path” in IPR

In In Re: Nuvasive, Inc., the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s Final Decision in an IPR because the PTAB misconstrued the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “lateral, trans-psoas path.” By way of background, the pat… Read More

CAFC Vacates PTAB Decision Based on Claim Interpretation of "Aseptic"

The Federal Circuit, in Nestle USA v. Steuben Foods, vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) for an unreasonably broad interpretation of the term “aseptic.” Notably, where… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

Christopher Francis and Charles Bieneman will conduct Part Two of a two-part webinar to discuss best practices for preparing, and then prosecuting, patent applications at the USPTO. The presentation will dive underneath the basic legal requirements…Register

Subscribe