What is the relationship between the broadest reasonable interpretation and the doctrine of claim differentiation?
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard and the doctrine of claim differentiation are both important principles in claim interpretation. While MPEP 2111 doesn’t explicitly discuss their relationship, it’s important to understand how they interact:
The doctrine of claim differentiation presumes that different claims have different scopes. This can influence the BRI of a claim term. For example, if a dependent claim adds a specific limitation to an independent claim, the BRI of the independent claim might be interpreted as not inherently including that limitation.
However, the Federal Circuit has noted that claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule. In Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the court stated:
“While we have noted that claim differentiation is a useful analytic tool, it cannot enlarge the meaning of a claim beyond that which is supported by the patent documents, or relieve any claim of limitations imposed by the prosecution history.”
Therefore, while claim differentiation can inform the BRI, it doesn’t override clear definitions or disavowals in the specification or prosecution history.
To learn more: