Proposed rules for inter partes reexamination
Will the new rules explicitly state: In reexamination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation, except for means/step plus function limitations? In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858 (Fed. Cir. 1984 (en banc).
Both the Examiner and the third party attacking the patent have the burden of establishing invalidating facts by a preponderance of the evidence? In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
On the legal issue of obviousness, the burden of persuasion is on the Examiner and the party attacking the patent to show unpatentability by 50.1% or comparable words? Section 102 -- a person shall be entitled to a patent unless ...
The Office is not required to give any deference to a court's prior determination of claim scope, for two reasons: claim scope is an issue of law, which the Office is free to determine de novo, and the standard of claim scope is different in the Office from that in court?