IN RE CSB-SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The PTO must apply the Phillips standard for claim construction whenever a patent expires

by | Aug 9, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The PTO must apply the Phillips standard for claim construction whenever a patent expires, even in the middle of proceedings that had previously used the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Here, for example, the Board’s continued use of the broadest...

RESPIRONICS, INC. v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Unclaimed elements essential for operation of the claimed invention need not necessarily be claimed

by | Jul 29, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Unclaimed elements that are essential for operation of the claimed invention need not necessarily be claimed. Here, for example, information about how “patient compliance data” was obtained for the claimed recording of such information was found to be permissibly...

IN RE LF CENTENNIAL LIMITED (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A common but generic characteristic shared between elements does not support a conclusion of equivalence

by | Jun 29, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

A common but generic characteristic shared by a claim element and a prior art element does not support even a broadest reasonable interpretation that one can be the other. Here, for example, a “spine” and a “side panel” of a TV console were found to be distinct even...

IN RE MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECH LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Broadest reasonable interpretation does not cover prior art explicitly disclaimed in the specification

by | Apr 19, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO does not ordinarily cover prior art implementations explicitly disclaimed in the specification. Here, for example, a hand-held remote control device claimed as being “adapted to be held by the human...

DELL INC. v. ACCELERON, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language

by | Mar 15, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language. Here, for example, a dedicated ethernet path claimed as providing a microcontroller module with a connection “to remotely poll” various components was found to require that the...

PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Broadest dictionary definition does not necessarily satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation standard

by | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest dictionary definition of a claim term does not necessarily satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Here, for example, the PTO’s asserted definition of a continuity member positioned to “reside around” a coaxial cable as requiring nothing...