tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post5412373776280113649..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Follow-up on "each" in a claimKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-71430164151087434432010-01-12T09:06:22.152-05:002010-01-12T09:06:22.152-05:00What PTO Claim Construction? :-) I say that becaus...What PTO Claim Construction? :-) I say that because the PTO doesn't do claim construction. <br /><br />I agree this probably wouldn't have happened if Examiners were required to do explicit claim construction. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the *Board* isn't even required to do it, although sometimes they do. <br /><br />On a related note: just as there are two different standards for claim construction, there are two different standards for indefiniteness. Under Ex Parte Miyazaki, a claim is indefinite during Examiner whenever it's "amenable to two or more possible constructions". Whereas the standard for a granted patent is "insolubly ambiguous".<br /><br />I think ResQNet and Skvorecz are both indefinite under the BPAI rule yet definite under the Fed. Cir. rule.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-41481419810771114032010-01-11T11:07:21.248-05:002010-01-11T11:07:21.248-05:00I think this case highlights a difference between ...I think this case highlights a difference between the PTO claim construction and a court's interpretation. I believe The PTO could have issued a 112, second rejection here to force the applicant to remove the ambiguity from the claims, because at least arguably the claim language did incorporate things that the inventor did not intend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com