Re: The meat of the STRONGER Patents ACT / bullet points/Uncle
In a never ending attempt to address issues to which Ming brings no expertise, he refers Uncle to the following snippet from a PTAB Update article of October 2014 entitled, "Is The 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' The Appropriate Standard".
First, the USPTO justified the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as being allegedly consistent with the legislative history of the AIA. See 77 FR 48680, 48697-99 (Aug. 14, 2012) ("The adoption of the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' standard is further consistent with the legislative history of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which indicates that Congress was aware of the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' standard and expected the Office to apply the standard to the new Leahy-Smith America Invents Act review proceedings."). The Patent Office concluded that neither "Congress [nor] the drafters of the legislation considered a different standard for [these proceedings]." Id. at 48697. The Office had to so justify because the AIA was silent as to what claim construction standard should apply to inter partes review ("IPR"), post-grant review ("PGR"), and covered business method patent review proceedings.
From the above, Ming blithely concludes that there is no legislative obstacle to any newly hatched head of the USPTO imposing the Phillips standard.