The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 5th, 2020, 10:23pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Patent Drafting/Interpretation
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Claims in light of the specification
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Claims in light of the specification  (Read 1068 times)
lurking in the shadows
Guest
Claims in light of the specification
« on: May 11th, 2007, 1:23am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

Has any patent attorney/agent ever had problems figuring out a client drafted spec and a previous attorney written claims to determine what in the heck they were covering?
 
I mean during markman hearings they try and define these things, how are you supposed to take over anothers work and figure out where they were going with the claims?
IP Logged
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: Claims in light of the specification
« Reply #1 on: May 11th, 2007, 10:49am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Yes, I have and all the time.
 
I don't have any answers, though.  Usually, that's a clue that the application wasn't written very well.  And, that's probably a perfect reason to not have one person draft the spec and another draft the claims.  Even so, the person drafting the claims ought to be careful to follow the spec.  If that can't be done reasonably with the spec the way it is, the person drafting the claims ought to modify the spec as needed.
 
Now, getting away from what ought to be done and closer to what you can do when faced with that problem, I try to divine what was in the respective minds of the previous drafters -- looking for some heart, essence, or gist of the invention.  Then, that might shed some light on what they were thinking and help you to work from there.
 
Notice that I said "try" and "might."
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
lurking in the shadows
Guest
Re: Claims in light of the specification
« Reply #2 on: May 11th, 2007, 1:04pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

thank u for the reply.  it is weird because terms are used to couch terms used in the specification, but that term does not exist in the specification.   It would seem to me, that if you amended the spec to include this term, you would be adding new matter correct?   I mean, if the terms used in the spec were all related in some way, it would not be new matter, but if unrelated, you are ecompassing them in some random term.   This is very difficult.
IP Logged
Isaac
Senior Member
****




   


Posts: 3472
Re: Claims in light of the specification
« Reply #3 on: May 11th, 2007, 1:28pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 11th, 2007, 1:04pm, lurking in the shadows wrote:
It would seem to me, that if you amended the spec to include this term, you would be adding new matter correct?

 
The claims as filed are part of the specification.  So moving terminology from the claims as filed into the disclosure may not constitute new matter.   In that case, the question is instead whether the specification as a whole contains support for the claims.
 
It isn't clear to me from your original question at exactly what stage of prosecution you are becoming involved.  
 
IP Logged

Isaac
lurking in the shadows
Guest
Re: Claims in light of the specification
« Reply #4 on: May 11th, 2007, 1:59pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

I am filing a prel. amend, trying to claim matter that was left unclaimed.  I am finding the problem in trying to couch many terms with one word.  However, I guess I could always write a dependent for each, but that would cost more.  
 
I always try and use spec vocabulary in trying to do this, but it is difficult.
IP Logged
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board