tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post1842506495691131592..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Time To Do Away With "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation?" Paper Says "Yes!"Two-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-90737436269238849342009-08-19T23:05:47.021-05:002009-08-19T23:05:47.021-05:00This is true, but we may have to consider the prac...This is true, but we may have to consider the practicality of getting the same standard. The PTO is already backed up and examiners aren't lawyers so there isn't sufficient time for claim construction. Hundreds of hours can be spent on claim construction in court. Even then, there is a good chance the Federal Circuit will overturn it anyway. The time and resources do not exist in the PTO, but if you are willing to present evident to them, they should consider it.Katiehttp://www.beckthomas.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-56555589136630018682009-07-23T11:23:24.812-05:002009-07-23T11:23:24.812-05:00One rationale for applying the BRI standard is tha...One rationale for applying the BRI standard is that the claims can be amended during prosecution. However, this is not the case in a reexamination of an expired patent. The Board, in unpublished and non-precedential opinions, have applied the narrower construction instead of the BRI standard when interpreting claims during reexamination of an expired patent. See Ex Parte Neefe (PTOBPAI 2007); Ex Parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015 (PTOBPAI 1991); Ex Parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655 (PTOBPAI 1986). Just another reason how different claim interpretation standards is confusing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com