The name of the game is the claim, arguably the most used word in the patent office or in this field of endeavor, it captures the essence of the invention and at the end, everything seems to boil down to it – The CLAIM.
As the most fundamental concept of claim, antecedent and basis, some attorneys still careless to allocate the “the” or “said” on a different location, which completely changes the scope of the claim and hence, adds complication to the prosecution.
e.g.
A router connects to a gateway, the router uses a routing table …
A router connects to a gateway, a router uses a routing table …
Where the first limitation has one router, but the second has two, which points the scope or intention to an entirely opposite direction from the original intention. Even such a simple example will cause huge problems, not to mention the following limitations and you surely will get an112 2nd without a doubt.
(a) identifying, by a server, a first item for an item comparison… set of one or more other items … the item comparison may be produced for (b) identifying, by a server, a comparison set of one or more… programmatically determining, by a server, an order of attributes…
(a) identifying, by a name server, a first item for an item comparison… set of one or more other items … the item comparison may be produced for (b) identifying, by a proxy server, a comparison set of one or more… programmatically determining, by the server, an order of attributes…
The bottom line is that count the number of your components and the number of time it has been referenced, and if possible, use different name refers to each component to write a concise and clear cut claim.
编辑于 2019-8-8 著作权归作者所有
