What 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 MoreHow does the “person of ordinary skill in the art” concept affect claim interpretation?
The concept of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA) is crucial in patent claim interpretation. According to MPEP 2111, claim interpretation should be based on how a POSITA would understand the claim terms. The MPEP states: “The focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be…
Read MoreHow should patent examiners treat reference characters in claims?
Patent examiners should treat reference characters in claims as helpful cross-references that do not affect the claim’s scope. According to MPEP 2173.05(s), “Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.“ Examiners should: Consider the claim language independently of the reference characters. Use the reference characters to…
Read MoreHow should patent examiners approach double inclusion in claims?
Patent examiners should approach double inclusion in claims with careful consideration of the specific context and claim language. The MPEP 2173.05(o) provides guidance for examiners: “The facts in each case must be evaluated to determine whether or not the multiple inclusion of one or more elements in a claim gives rise to indefiniteness in that…
Read MoreCan an applicant be their own lexicographer?
Yes, an applicant can act as their own lexicographer. The MPEP states, “An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary…
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 MoreHow does MPEP 2111.04 affect the interpretation of method claims with contingent limitations?
MPEP 2111.04 provides specific guidance on the interpretation of method claims with contingent limitations. This is particularly important for determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of such claims. According to MPEP 2111.04: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 2111.04 treat the phrase “configured to” in patent claims?
MPEP 2111.04 does not explicitly address the phrase “configured to” in patent claims. However, it is often treated similarly to “adapted to” or “adapted for.” The interpretation generally depends on the specific context and structure of the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04: “The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a…
Read MoreHow does the use of “means” or “step” in a claim affect its interpretation?
The use of “means” or “step” in a claim can significantly affect its interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to the MPEP § 2187, the presence or absence of these terms creates rebuttable presumptions regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): Use of “means” or “step”: Creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is…
Read MoreHow are means-plus-function limitations interpreted in interference proceedings?
In interference proceedings, means-plus-function limitations require special consideration. According to MPEP 2301.03: “Claims reciting means-plus-function limitations, in particular, might have different scopes depending on the corresponding structure described in the written description.” This means that even if two claims have identical language, they may not necessarily be drawn to the same invention if they use…
Read More