Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cordovan66]

I have a new framework for digital audio processing which has advantage A over existing solutions.
Besides this, I have solutions (B, C, D, E) to certain other audio quality problems that plague existing audio processing schemes. These solutions only work within the above new framework.
I've drafted the claims as follows

A method for audio processing comprising:
   Invention A
   Optionally Invention B
   Optionally Invention C
   Optionally Invention D
   Optionally Invention E

Is this okay? Essentially, I'm using the logical "OR" to combine the secondary inventions. A different way would be to list each possible combination but then there would be 16 combinations with a claim for each combination.

The situation is more complicated where all combinations are not acceptable. Is there any concise way of listing the desired combinations of inventions without writing down each combination in its entirety.

If combining the sub-inventions doesn't add any synergistic value, do I even need to list combinations or should I list them seperately as follows:

1. A method for audio processing comprising:
   Invention A

2. The method of claim 1 wherein Invention B

3. The method of claim 1 wherein Invention C

4. The method of claim 1 wherein Invention D

5. The method of claim 1 wherein Invention E


Thanks
-M

[khazzah]

A method for audio processing comprising:
   Invention A
   Optionally Invention B
   Optionally Invention C
   Optionally Invention D
   Optionally Invention E

Your use of the word "invention" confuses me. I think most patent attorneys would say "the invention is *defined* by the claim.

I'm also confused by "advantage A". Is A a feature that results in an advantage, or is A the result/adv. itself?

What I think you're saying, though, is that you have a number of patentable features which are independent of each other. I think you're saying A is your core patentable feature, and you think B-E are also patentable features which make sense in combination with A.

If my assumptions are correct, then conventional drafting strategy is to have independent claim to A, and then one dependent claim to each additional feature. You want as few features as possible in the claim, since an infringer escapes by omitting any one of the claimed features.

It is certainly possible to craft a claims which list alternatives, but I generally do that only when the alternatives belong to a class. So if B and C have something in common, a claim to A+(B | C) makes more sense to me than if they don't.