How 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 More

How 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 More

What is the difference between “adapted to” and “capable of” in patent claims according to MPEP 2111.04?

MPEP 2111.04 does not explicitly differentiate between “adapted to” and “capable of” in patent claims. However, the guidance provided for “adapted to” can be applied to understand the difference: MPEP 2111.04 states: “The court noted that an intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do…

Read More