As the name implies, the principle of "the broadest reasonable interpretation" is to allow the technical features in the claim to be interpreted as widely as possible, as long as this interpretation is consistent with the description in the specification. For example, "floor" is recorded in the claim, but its material is not clearly defined. Even if the examples in the specification are about wooden boards, they should not be limited to this. If the plastic floor can also achieve the purpose of the invention, the floor in the claim can be interpreted as covering the plastic floor. There are two reasons for this explanation: first, it is conducive to the examiner to expand the shooting range and retrieve the existing technology as much as possible; The second is to let the obligee modify the claim as much as possible to clearly and accurately define the scope of patent protection. It can be said that the principle of "the broadest reasonable explanation" is an important embodiment of patent examination skepticism.
USPTO has adopted the principle of "the broadest reasonable explanation" for hundreds of years. For 80 years, the court has never questioned this practice. In 1932, the Customs and Patent Appeals Court (CCPA), the predecessor of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), explicitly recognized "the broadest reasonable interpretation" as the examination standard for patent applications for the first time in the Reholton case. 198 1 year, CCPA once again recognized "the broadest reasonable explanation" as the examination standard for reissue applications. In 1984, CAFC recognizes that "the broadest reasonable explanation" is the standard of review. However, it is worth noting that CAFC is cautious about this concept, and does not call BRI the standard of claim construction, but the expedient measure of review.
USPTO's current MPEP (equivalent to China's Patent Examination Guide) has a special BRI section in the chapter on Patentability, which clearly points out the differences in the interpretation of patent claims before and after patent authorization: in the process of patent examination, patent claims must be interpreted with the "broadest reasonable interpretation" consistent with the specification, that is, not only according to the literal language of patent claims, but also in. The claim of authorized patent should not be given "the broadest reasonable explanation" in the court's infringement and invalidation procedure, but should fully consider reviewing historical files.