Broadest Reasonable Interpretation is NOT Broadest Possible Interpretation

September 30, 2017
Post by Blog Staff

In a decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals last week, In re Smith International, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) decision affirming the Examiner’s rejections of some claims in an ex parte reexamination. The invention is directed to a downhole drilling tool for oil and gas operation. The involved claims recite the word “body”  without further limiting features in the claims and a definition in the specification. The Examiner interpreted the word “body” to encompass other components such as “mandrel” and “can sleeve” that the specification also discussed. Under such interpretation, the Examiner rejected the claims as being anticipated by and obvious over a prior art. 

The Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection, reasoning that the word “body” is a generic term without structural specificity and that the specification does not define the word and preclude the Examiner’s interpretation. Furthermore, The Board rejected the argument that the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term as a distinct element from other components, because the patent owner “has not shown that the parts identified in the prior art as bodies are so similar to create a specific identity of a body is.” The Board reasoned that it was perfectly reasonable to understand the term to include one or more other elements, given its broadest reasonable interpretation.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s construction of “body” was unreasonably broad, holding “[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.” The Federal Circuit held that the correct inquiry is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification,i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the specification.” 

Specifically, The Federal Circuit held that following the Board’s logic, “any description short of an express definition or disclaimer in the specification would result in an adoption of a broadest possible interpretation of a claim term, irrespective of repeated and consistent descriptions in the specification that indicate otherwise.” And “PTO fails to point out to any description of the body that would support its strained construction of “body.”” Thus, the Borad’s interpretation is unsupported and improper. A broadest reasonable interpretation cannot be a broadest possible interpretation.

Xiaohong Liu, Ph.D., is an Intellectual Property Attorney in the Biotechnology/Chemical Patent Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. He is a native Chinese speaker and would be happy to discuss this topic with you in further detail. For additional information please visit or contact Xiaohong directly via email at

Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.