{"id":847,"date":"2021-03-31T11:58:28","date_gmt":"2021-03-31T11:58:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/?p=847"},"modified":"2022-07-25T07:30:27","modified_gmt":"2022-07-25T07:30:27","slug":"tpl-blog-patents-ptab-ipr-ptabcast-inresmith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/tpl-blog-patents-ptab-ipr-ptabcast-inresmith\/","title":{"rendered":"IPR PTABCast: In Re Smith International Inc."},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"Podcast\"><iframe style=\"border: none;\" src=\"\/\/html5-player.libsyn.com\/embed\/episode\/id\/5881229\/height\/360\/width\/640\/theme\/standard\/autonext\/no\/thumbnail\/yes\/autoplay\/no\/preload\/no\/no_addthis\/no\/direction\/backward\/\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><strong>Summary:<\/strong> PTO not allowed to be &#8220;unreasonable&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Patent owners gain another small victory!<\/p>\n<p>The Patent office\u2019s strongest weapon against patent claim is BRI or \u201cbroadest reasonable interpretation\u201d, but BRI is \u201cunreasonable\u201d when it is contrary to general claims construction principles. The Federal Circuit finds \u201cbody&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Questions?<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Summary: PTO not allowed to be &#8220;unreasonable&#8221; Patent owners gain another small victory! The Patent office\u2019s strongest weapon against patent claim is BRI or \u201cbroadest reasonable interpretation\u201d, but BRI is \u201cunreasonable\u201d when it is contrary to general claims construction principles. The Federal Circuit finds \u201cbody&#8221; does not mean whatever the examiner thinks it means under [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1520,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ipr-ptabcast"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=847"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/847\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":848,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/847\/revisions\/848"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1520"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}