m*******0
发帖数: 503 | 1 新手请教，上司不给力，这里牛人多，发来问问。
一组method claims，其中independent claim里的两个步骤a,b有替代方案c,d，要怎么
把这两个替代步骤c，d写着dependent claims里呢？
如果用further comprising，逻辑上有点不对吧？ | f*****n
发帖数: 12752 | 2 不能变成平行的independent claim吗？ | f*****n
发帖数: 12752 | 3 或者加在原来的independent claim里（用a, b或者c, d的形式） | m*******0
发帖数: 503 | 4 这个方案有想过，但总觉得不太完美似的
【在 f*****n 的大作中提到】
: 不能变成平行的independent claim吗？
| m*******0
发帖数: 503 | 5 这个是怎样的？ 在independent claim里用 or？ 可以吗？ 我写claim的经验太少，没
遇过呀
【在 f*****n 的大作中提到】
: 或者加在原来的independent claim里（用a, b或者c, d的形式）
| f*****n
发帖数: 12752 | 6 可以啊，如果一个步骤可以有两种方法来完成，你可以都列出来用or吧，或者放到一个
group里用 "this prosecure" selected from the group consisting of A and B.
多个independent claims 也没问题啊，差不了多少钱。 | i*******p
发帖数: 297 | 7 if for example a is exchangable with c, and b is exchangable with d, can
they all be in the dependent claims?
claim 1: independent claim
claim 2: the method of claim 1, wherein said .....a, b
claim 2: the method of claim 1, wherein said.......c, d
i am new to this too, criticisms are welcome!
【在 m*******0 的大作中提到】
: 新手请教，上司不给力，这里牛人多，发来问问。
: 一组method claims，其中independent claim里的两个步骤a,b有替代方案c,d，要怎么
: 把这两个替代步骤c，d写着dependent claims里呢？
: 如果用further comprising，逻辑上有点不对吧？
| f*****n
发帖数: 12752 | 8 OK and actually it is a better format, if claim 1 is novel and inventive, i.e., no prior art
teaching e or f which is exchangable with a or b.
【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】
: if for example a is exchangable with c, and b is exchangable with d, can
: they all be in the dependent claims?
: claim 1: independent claim
: claim 2: the method of claim 1, wherein said .....a, b
: claim 2: the method of claim 1, wherein said.......c, d
: i am new to this too, criticisms are welcome!
| m*******0
发帖数: 503 | 9 For my case, steps a,b or c,d are actually the novel parts. Without them,
claim 1 would be just common steps, like receiving..., retrieving...,etc.
In such a context, I wonder if it is still a good solution to include
neither of the steps a,b or c,d in claim 1.
i.e., no prior art
【在 f*****n 的大作中提到】
: OK and actually it is a better format, if claim 1 is novel and inventive, i.e., no prior art
: teaching e or f which is exchangable with a or b.
| f*****n
发帖数: 12752 | | | | i*******p
发帖数: 297 | 11 ab/cd must have something in common? (therefore they are inter-changable?),
how about list those common-parts in the independent claim? or are the
common-parts all non-inventive?
【在 m*******0 的大作中提到】
: For my case, steps a,b or c,d are actually the novel parts. Without them,
: claim 1 would be just common steps, like receiving..., retrieving...,etc.
: In such a context, I wonder if it is still a good solution to include
: neither of the steps a,b or c,d in claim 1.
:
: i.e., no prior art
| o*********s
发帖数: 275 | 12 Using "or" sometimes can be risky. You may get a 112 for that if the
examiner is not reasonable. I got two such rejections recently. | f*****n
发帖数: 12752 | 13 how did you solve that? seperate them into different independent claims? | m*******0
发帖数: 503 | 14 That would require using a general name for non-common parts in the
independent claim.
,
【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】
: ab/cd must have something in common? (therefore they are inter-changable?),
: how about list those common-parts in the independent claim? or are the
: common-parts all non-inventive?
| i*******p
发帖数: 297 | 15 this is getting too convoluted without some details, which you coudln't
disclose (rightfully so), hehe.
【在 m*******0 的大作中提到】
: That would require using a general name for non-common parts in the
: independent claim.
:
: ,
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 16 A product claim is always better than a method claim in terms of eventual
patent protection/litigation, especially if the product is made overseas. | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 17 A product claim is always better than a method claim in terms of eventual
patent protection/litigation, especially if the product is made overseas. | d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 18 That's very true.
However, sometimes you cannot draft apparatus claims for some inventions,
especially after Digital-Vending Services International, LLC v. The
University of Phoenix, Inc.
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: A product claim is always better than a method claim in terms of eventual
: patent protection/litigation, especially if the product is made overseas.
| d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 19 I would fight to death if an examiner does that.
Did you guys notice that PTO recently had many junior examiners? They drive
me crazy.
【在 o*********s 的大作中提到】
: Using "or" sometimes can be risky. You may get a 112 for that if the
: examiner is not reasonable. I got two such rejections recently.
| d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 20 If a, b, c and d are each independently novel, I would write four
independent claims reciting only a, only b, only c and only d, respectively.
Alternatively, as ineedhelp suggested, you can write a single independent
claim with a term generic to a, b, c and d, and 4 dependent claims. It
doesn't hurt to be greedy in the beginning.
【在 m*******0 的大作中提到】
: 新手请教，上司不给力，这里牛人多，发来问问。
: 一组method claims，其中independent claim里的两个步骤a,b有替代方案c,d，要怎么
: 把这两个替代步骤c，d写着dependent claims里呢？
: 如果用further comprising，逻辑上有点不对吧？
|
|
