Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Making patent claims easier to read

posted by Michael Abramowicz

A principal reason for the profusion of claims in individual patents is that patentees offer narrower versions of their claims. A court might invalidate a broad claim, yet accept a narrower one. And so, sometimes claim 2 will read something like this: “A method according to claim 1, further comprising …”, with the language following adding some additional feature of the invention. (The more features in a claim, the narrower the invention.) Even understanding this approach, I’ve always found that it makes patents frustrating and confusing to read.

This approach also produces a practical problem. Let’s suppose that I believe that I have patented a version of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but just in case a court disagrees with me, I’d like to point to ten additional features of my invention that could be used to narrow my claims. The challenge is determining how to group these. For example, claim 2 could be “The invention of claim 1, further comprising” five of the features. But I would rather add only four of the features if I can get away with it. In theory, I could have a total of 1024 (= 2^10) claims, to cover all combinations of possible additional features, but that is cumbersome and expensive.

It would be nice if one could draft patents in a kind of collapsible outline form. (If you don’t know what I mean, see this example of a collapsible outline.) One’s broadest claim would appear without any need to click on a “+” sign. Narrower versions of the claim could be viewed by clicking on “+” signs, revealing either additional elements of a claim or, indented below a particular element, narrower versions of those elements (or, recursively, of subelements).

A possible counterargument is that such cascading claims would be easy to read on a computer, not so much on paper. I’m skeptical, though. I think it would be simple to adopt typographical conventions that would make it easy to read such claims on paper, too. The elements constituting the broadest claim could be in Roman type, with everything else in italics. As with the collapsible outlines, different indent levels would specify narrower versions of claims. Dividers could be used to separate alternative means of narrowing a claim (so that one could patent the almond-butter-and-jelly sandwich and the cashew-butter-and-jelly sandwich). I would show you just what I mean, but it’s not easy with this blogging software!

Granted, this is not a patent reform priority, and the PTO would need to develop some new means of calculating application fees. But are there any substantive or stylistic reasons to oppose such a reform?


 January 21, 2007 at 10:39 am   Posted in: Uncategorized   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. Adam - January 21, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    I don’t think we should make it easier to claim combinations of elements in the way you outline. To be perjorative to the idea, patents should not be land-grabs, but disclosure of what you think is new, useful, and non-obvious. If you think combo ABDE is useful, say so; don’t say “and we’d like to protect a set of things whose use we can’t really concieve of.”

  2. mmm - January 22, 2007 at 9:00 am

    Adam, I do not think his proposal changes things. The idea of a “land grab” is essentially what the broadest claim is anyway. Everything in the “outlined” claims already are encompassed by the broad claim (that’s the point) For example:

    I claim

    1. A sandwich.

    2. A sandwich in 1 comprising peanut butter and jelly.

    The reason to do this isn’t to expand the scope, it’s to CYA. If there is invalidating material for 1 that you may not be aware of, you still can protect 2.

    My hunch, however, is not that this way of claiming is difficult to read, but that there are just a number of bad writers.

    In it’s own way, patent law is arcane and obscure. This has a lot to do with the proclivity of patent prosecutors to adopt language with known/litigation-tested meaning.

  3. dak - January 22, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    Foreign jurisdictions allow multiple dependent claims that depend from multitply dependent claims, for example:

    1. A PB&J sandwich.

    2. The PB&J sandwich of claim 1, with crunchy PB.

    3. The PB&J sandwich of claim 1 or 2, with strawberry jam.

    4. The PB&J sandwich of claim 1, 2 or 3, on whole wheat bread.

    Under US law (35 USC 112, para. 4), claim 4 is improper, as one multiple dependent claim that depends from another. If such claims were permissible (and understood to mean that each possible combination of dependency is included), that would allow drafters to write compact claim sets that cover many independent combinations of features.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress