How does the USPTO handle claims that cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments?
The USPTO has specific guidelines for handling claims that cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments. According to the MPEP: “A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1:…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a claim falls within a statutory category?
The USPTO determines if a claim falls within a statutory category through Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. As described in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? The MPEP provides guidance on this process: The claim should be evaluated using its broadest reasonable…
Read MoreWhy does the USPTO use the broadest reasonable interpretation standard?
The USPTO uses the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard during patent examination for several important reasons. According to MPEP 2111: “Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.”…
Read MoreHow does the specification influence claim interpretation during patent examination?
The specification plays a crucial role in claim interpretation during patent examination. According to MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation “consistent with the specification.” This means: The specification provides context for understanding the claims. Definitions or special meanings provided in the specification must be considered. The use of claim terms in…
Read MoreWhat are the key steps in reviewing claims during patent examination?
Reviewing claims is a crucial part of patent examination. According to MPEP 2103, the key steps in reviewing claims are: Identify and evaluate each claim limitation: For processes, identify steps or acts to be performed For products, identify discrete physical structures or materials Correlate claim limitations with the disclosure: Match each claim limitation to portions…
Read MoreHow does the prosecution history affect claim interpretation during examination?
The prosecution history plays a crucial role in claim interpretation during patent examination. According to MPEP 2111: “The prosecution history of the patent or application under examination (hereafter referred to as ‘the prosecution history’) (including the disclosures of all related patents and applications) should be consulted when considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.”…
Read MoreHow does the prosecution history affect claim interpretation under BRI?
The prosecution history plays a significant role in claim interpretation under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard. MPEP 2111 states: “The prosecution history of the application is relevant to determining the meaning of the claims.” This means that statements made by the applicant during prosecution, including amendments and arguments, can limit the scope of claim…
Read MoreWhat is the “plain meaning” of a claim term?
The “plain meaning” of a claim term refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. As stated in the MPEP, “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the Phillips v. AWH Corp. case in claim interpretation?
The Phillips v. AWH Corp. case is a landmark decision that significantly impacts claim interpretation in patent examination and litigation. MPEP 2111 states: “The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’…
Read MoreWhat is the “ordinary and customary meaning” in patent claim interpretation?
What is the “ordinary and customary meaning” in patent claim interpretation? The “ordinary and customary meaning” in patent claim interpretation refers to the meaning that a term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This concept is fundamental to claim construction and is outlined in…
Read More