In re Power Integrations, Inc.
Although reexamination proceedings are not generally bound by prior judicial construction of a claim term, a claim term still must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Results for broadest reasonable interpretation
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Ex parte Schulhauser
With respect to the method claims, the Board does not give patentable weight to conditional limitations that are not necessarily performed. However, with respect to system claims, the Board may give such conditional limitations patentable weight.
In re Smith International, Inc.
A claim term must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation
Claim construction and anticipation in view of loosely defined prior art elements.
In re Imes
A broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must be consistent with the pain meaning of the term or with the specification.
In re Skvorecz
The Federal Circuit finds that the B.P.A.I. incorrectly construed the claim term “comprising”, further noting that the protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination is solely an examination expedient and does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.
In re American Academy of Science Tech Center
During examination, claims terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the interpretation one of ordinary skill in the art would reach in view of the specification.