Executive Summary1 min read
Key Takeaways
- This PTABCast episode summary reports a win for patent owners: the Patent Office’s ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ (BRI) standard is itself limited by general claim construction principles.
- The Federal Circuit ruled that the term ‘body’ does not mean whatever a patent examiner thinks it means under BRI, especially when the patent specification uses the term consistently.
- The stated lesson is that consistent terminology within a patent specification helps prevent an examiner or the Patent Office from stretching a term’s meaning under BRI.
- The post also promotes a live, complimentary webinar, ‘Ask The Patent Attorney,’ hosted by Thompson Patent Law.
The Bottom Line: Using patent terminology consistently throughout a specification can prevent the Patent Office from unreasonably broadening a term’s meaning under the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard, per this Federal Circuit ruling discussed on PTABCast.
Summary: PTO not allowed to be “unreasonable”
Patent owners gain another small victory!
The Patent office’s strongest weapon against patent claim is BRI or “broadest reasonable interpretation”, but BRI is “unreasonable” when it is contrary to general claims construction principles. The Federal Circuit finds “body” does not mean whatever the examiner thinks it means under BRI especially when the specification uses that term in a very consistent way. Lesson: it pays to be consistent.
Questions? If you would like to get your patent questions answered and be part of the show, Thompson Patent Law has a LIVE complimentary webinar called Ask The Patent Attorney. Call the number below and reserve your spot in this LIVE teaching event.
