How does claim construction differ in interference proceedings compared to written description evaluations?
In interference proceedings, claim construction differs from written description evaluations in a crucial way. The MPEP 2301.03 explains:
“Every claim must be construed in light of the application in which it appears for purpose of evaluating whether there is interfering subject matter, unlike when evaluating whether copied claims comply with the written description requirement where the originating disclosure is consulted.”
This difference is further clarified by case law:
“See Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1375, 91 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (when a party challenges written description support for a copied claim in an interference, the originating disclosure provides the meaning of the pertinent claim language).”
In essence, for interference proceedings, claims are interpreted based on their own application, while for written description challenges in interferences, the original disclosure is used to interpret the claims.
To learn more: