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