During patent prosecution, Examiners often liberally apply the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard in rejecting
claims. When responding to these rejections, it is important
to remember that there are limits to an Examiner's broadest
reasonable interpretation. In Ex parte Wilhelm Heine
("Heine"), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
("PTAB") rejected the Examiner's unreasonable claim
construction stating that "'[t]he correct inquiry in
giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or
precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the
examiner.'" Appl. No. 14/076,456, Decision on Appeal
(Sept. 25, 2019) (hereinafter "Heine"), at 6
(quoting In re Smith Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375,
1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Instead, Examiners need to rely on
a claim interpretation that is consistent with the core, inventive
concept of the invention. Id.