Claims are required to be interpreted as board as reasonable allow, but why？

Here is the answer from USPTO

1. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution. Broad interpretation reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.

2. The PTO is not required to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as the court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. In re Morris, 44 USPQ 2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

What this means is that examiner may have more expertise on the subject matter than judges since applications are assigned to specific art unit which group of examiners are major on, thus they interpret the claim will be, in general, narrower, compare to the judges when the case goes out to litigation. In order to shrink the gap between examiner and judges, one of ordinate skill in the art needs to interpret the claim as board as possible in light of the spec. and at the time of the invention. 

编辑于 2019-8-12 著作权归作者所有