patent_type
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
 |
Re: process claim
« Reply #3 on: Oct 3rd, 2007, 8:24am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Then claim:
A method comprising
first step,
second step,
third step,
fourth (novel) step--but don't say it is novel; and
fifth step.
If all steps are required, then anybody who would infringe, must complete all five steps.
An alternate structure to consider is:
A method for [doing whatever], comprising
fourth step.
Generally, one step method claims are frowned upon, so pick some other step to throw in there that is the least limiting of the other steps. Then you could capture infringing methods that don't necessarily include all five steps.
Also consider a step-plus-function claim:
A method for [doing whatever], comprising
step for [whatever the function is of the novel step 4].
Again, single step step-plus-function claims are frowned upon, so pick another step or step-plus-function to put in the claims that is essentially non-limiting.
Don't try this step-plus-function claiming at home. It is tricky and the CAFC doesn't have any good guidelines (have they ever decided a case that *is* step-plus-function?) for how these are interpreted, but it is an alternate claiming method.
You ask about "better protection." Better protection likely is obtained by having a variety of different independent claim structures with a variety of dependent claim strucutures so that you have the broadest possible selection of coverage to assert against an infringing competitor. Don't neglect dependent claims--these are very important, e.g., for claim differentiation purposes.
Just my dos centavos.
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Author
IP Logged
Remove