Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 MARCH 2016

PPC Broadband v Corning Optical: BRI Is Not An Infinitely Elastic Polymer

MPEP 2111 reads: "Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification."

CanadaIntellectual Property

MPEP1 2111 reads:

"Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification."

The MPEP then quotes Phillips v. AWH Corp.2:

"The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." ... Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description."3

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from