Claiming Strategy: Broad or Narrow? Strategies Come Full.
This is the second in a two-part blog series on the scope of your patent application’s claim set. (Read Part One). When drafting the claim set for a patent application, conventional wisdom is generally to pursue the broadest claims possible — that is, the claims that capture the broadest range of technology, without being so broad as to cover the prior art.
It is a legal document that you must write clearly, precisely and in a certain format. Patent applications are written this way to make your invention and claims clear to the examiner and anyone else reading your patent. Our lesson on writing a patent application begins the way most people start to write their applications: with the drawings.
Here is an example of a broad claim (claim 1) found in a patent for a collapsible tent frame. Claim 8 for the same patent is narrower in scope and focuses on a specific aspect of one element of the invention. Try reading through the claims for this patent and notice how the section begins with broad claims and develops towards claims that are narrower in scope. Characteristics. Three criteria.
Another reason to the include at least a broad claim is that most foreign laws have strict adherence to the rule that the broadest initially presented claim will set the claim scope for the application. So if you present a very broad claim initially, you can amend narrower. But if you present a narrower claim first then realize that you can go broader, you cannot amend to go broader. It is for.
Potential Pitfalls of Broad Claim Language by Rebecca L. Harker. When drafting patent claims, patentees generally attempt to draft the broadest set of claims possible in order to benefit from the full scope of their inventive contribution. To pass muster at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), these broad claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, must have sufficient.
Validity of a patent claim over prior art (see also Prior Art Invalidity). The process of resolving disputes between the parties concerning the meaning of disputed patent claim terms is referred to as the claim construction or Markman process. Markman Process In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the responsibility for claim construction determinations falls on.
Pharmaceutical patent owners invent a drug, and that drug is what they’re entitled to patent. But in software, broad claims of the “curing cancer” form are everywhere; they just use “a.