Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Attorney search
Search by

The collective expertise of our global team distinguishes OBWB in the field of Intellectual Property Law. We align our best resources to meet each client's specific needs and we treat each matter with the highest degree of attention and care.

12600 Hill Country Blvd.
Suite 275, Austin   TX 78738
P: 512.480.0667
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Osha Liang LLP
1200 Pearl St. Ste. 314
Boulder, CO   80302
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
8/F, Hangzhou Kerry Center
385 Yan An Rd.
Hangzhou, China   310006
P: +86.571.2689.2537
F: +86.571.2689.2700

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Two Houston Center
909 Fannin
Suite 3500, Houston   TX 77010
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
2 Rue de la Paix
75002 Paris, France
P: +33.1.4494.8630
F: +33.1.4494.8631

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Level 28 Shinagawa Intercity Tower A
2-15-1 Konan Minato-ku
Tokyo, Japan   108-6028
P: 81.3.6717.2877
F: 81.3.6717.2878

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
1701 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW Suite 200
Washington, DC   20006
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.

Claim Construction at the Patent Office: What is Reasonable?

日本語 简体中文 繁體中文 русский

During examination of patent applications, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) applies the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (“BRI”) standard to determine the meaning of claim terms.  See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  This same standard is applied to patents reviewed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) during post-grant review.  37 C.F.R. §42.100(b).  More specifically, under the BRI standard, claims are construed to have a meaning consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, unless otherwise defined in the specification, and consistent with the meaning or usage within the specification and drawings as interpreted by one possessing ordinary skill in the art.  See Manual of Patent Examination & Procedure § 2111 [R-07.2015]; see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); (Microsoft Corp. v. Proxy-conn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

A recent U.S. Federal Circuit case (In re Nuvasive, Inc.), while non-precedential, highlights the requirement that the construction of a claim must be tied to the specification.  This particular case focused on the meaning of the term “lateral” within the context of surgical methods along a lateral trans-psoas path.  In construing the claim, the PTAB relied on expert testimony from the inventor of a prior art patent that was relied on to find obviousness.  The prior art inventor’s testimony revealed the meaning of the term “lateral” within the context of his patent regarding a related, albeit different, surgical method.  The Federal Circuit found the PTAB’s interpretation of the term “lateral” unreasonably broad because it relied on testimony not tied to the specification of the patent at issue but rather to another patent and a different surgical method.  Moreover, the Court found that the specification of the patent at issue indicated that the proper scope of the term “lateral” was more restrictive than the PTAB’s construction.  Indeed, the Court found that “the Board’s construction seemingly drains the term of meaning in the claim phrase.”

In practice, examiners and the Board rely heavily on the BRI standard in providing the framework for anticipation and obviousness rejections.  While claims may not be construed to import limitations from the specification, the specification provides meaningful guidance regarding the meaning of claim terms.  This case emphasizes the need for a close review by patent practitioners of the PTO’s claim constructions to ensure that the interpretation is reasonable in breadth considering the specification.