Print

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

[G8ZoST]

A claim has the steps (abstracted, there is more detail in the orginal):

   - create a query
   - submit the query to a data store
   - receive the results of the query
   - where this query returns multiple results store these multiple results in a cell of a spreadsheet such that...
   
The claim specifically only states what to do in cases where the query returns more than one value. Since common spreadsheets cannot process more than one value in a cell, the spec explains a way to handle these multiple values, and the rest of the independent claim and also some of the dependent claims go towards this.
The spec makes it clear that a single return value is also to be stored in a cell of a spreadsheet. The claim may thus, in light of the spec, be read that a single result is also stored in a cell of a spreadsheet.
My question here:
Does this storing of the single value fall within the scope of the claim, i.e. is it part of the claimed invention, or is only the handling of multiple return values covered here?

[JustAnotherExaminer]

there are some 112 2nd issues.

If it said "when this query returns multiple results, store these multiple results..."

Then the claim covers doing something specific when the query returns multiple results, regardless of what happens when one result is returned.  However, it doesn't actually claim the query returned multiple results.

So if I found art that taught returning one result and storing it, then it'd read on it, in my opinion.

However, if you claimed:
-create a query
-submit the query to a data store
-receive multiple results in response to the query
-storing the multiple results in a cell...

You'd be more on track.  However, "storing multiple results in a cell" doesn't require that the multiple results are actually stored in only one cell.  I could store each of the results in a different cell, and I'd still be "storing multiple results in a cell".  And then, if you claimed "storing in only one cell", if the examiner could interpret multiple "cells" to be "only one cell" (as in, a cell of cells) it'd still read on it.

We do that last interpretation in networking a lot, because we can group devices into a "network" however we want.

[JimIvey]

Does this storing of the single value fall within the scope of the claim, i.e. is it part of the claimed invention, or is only the handling of multiple return values covered here?

I'm finding following the abbreviated claim language a bit challenging, but it seems to me that the storing the multiple results in a cell is conditional upon receiving multiple results.  As I read it, the claim does not specify what you do if you receive only a single result.  So, infringement won't turn on what you do with singular results.

JAE's suggested amendment would be closer to how I'd write that claim, unless I had dependent claims that specified what is done when a single result is received or some other reason to want the conditional logic in the claim.

Regards.

[G8ZoST]

First of all thanks for the answers.

Sorry if my OP was a bit vague - didn't really want the claim (which is prior art) to be searchable

The original claim language definitely doesn't state what happens in case a single result is received.
(It does, however, make absolutely clear that the results are stored in only a single cell. Interesting remarks about the meaning of "a cell" in my abbreviated claim, though.)

The main question, really, was wether a claim for a method for a specific kind of query that returns a single result, which is then stored in a single cell, would infringe on the prior art claim.
Based on your answers I think I can assume that this is not the case.

[Isaac]

The main question, really, was wether a claim for a method for a specific kind of query that returns a single result, which is then stored in a single cell, would infringe on the prior art claim.
Based on your answers I think I can assume that this is not the case.

Claims cannot infringe.  Only implementations of claims can infringe.

[khazzah]

The main question, really, was whether a claim for a method for a specific kind of query that returns a single result, which is then stored in a single cell, would infringe on the prior art claim.
Based on your answers I think I can assume that this is not the case.

Claims cannot infringe.  Only implementations of claims can infringe.

Yeah, it does seem weird to talk about a claim infringing a claim :-)

I've finally gotten used to saying "a claim reads on" something. That phrasing seemed really strange to me when I first started in this field.

[JimIvey]

The main question, really, was wether a claim for a method for a specific kind of query that returns a single result, which is then stored in a single cell, would infringe on the prior art claim.
Based on your answers I think I can assume that this is not the case.

Yeah, the claim infringing a claim doesn't make any sense.  If you're drafting/prosecuting an application in which you'd like to include that claim, the proper comparison is to the spec of the other patent, not just the claims.  If you mean whether your implementation that stores single results in a cell infringes, that makes more sense.

In the latter case, I don't think you can assume you wouldn't infringe the claim, unless the claim said something about never storing a single result in a spreadsheet cell.  If the claim doesn't say what you do with a single result, then what you do with a single result has no bearing on whether you infringe the claim.

For a more clear example of that, consider whether you'd infringe implementing your system in Windows, Mac, or Linux.  Which infringe?  Which don't?  Unless the claim specifies an operating system for implementation, they can all fringe, and infringement hinges on the details that are recited in the claims.

Regards.

[khazzah]

The main question, really, was wether a claim for a method for a specific kind of query that returns a single result, which is then stored in a single cell, would infringe on the prior art claim.

If the claim doesn't say what you do with a single result, then what you do with a single result has no bearing on whether you infringe the claim.

If OP really meant to ask:

whether a system which did not ever return and store multiple results as claimed, because the system only performed "a specific kind of query that returns a single result"

then the answer to that is No, does not infringe. Because it was stipulated that the system did not return and store multiple results as claimed. As pointed out earlier, the system's handling of single results is irrelevant.

[G8ZoST]

I'll try to get used to the "claim reads on" vs. "implementation infringes" differentiation.  , and hope to be express myself less confusing in the future.

Regarding Karen's post:
That's exactly what I meant - a claim which concerns itself only with single results, and would never return multiple results and store these in a cell.

Thanks for the helpful comments!

[JimIvey]

Regarding Karen's post:
That's exactly what I meant - a claim which concerns itself only with single results, and would never return multiple results and store these in a cell.

You're still referring to a claim, so I presume you mean that you want to know if you claim is allowable over the other reference.

In that case, you'd need to know what the rest of the reference says.

Here's the original claim posted:

A claim has the steps (abstracted, there is more detail in the orginal):

   - create a query
   - submit the query to a data store
   - receive the results of the query
   - where this query returns multiple results store these multiple results in a cell of a spreadsheet such that...

If the spec describes that singular results from the query are also stored in a cell of a spreadsheet, and that's more or less what you're hoping to claim, I'd say you'd have a hard time getting that claim allowed.  Of course, it's really hard to say that definitively without knowing all the other facts and context, but doing more than what is claimed generally doesn't avoid infringement, and that which infringes if later anticipates if before.  Put more succinctly, you can't claim a subset of a prior art reference (well, unless you can show something non-obvious about eliminating an essential component of the prior art -- like a table with no legs).

Regards.

[khazzah]

Regarding Karen's post:
That's exactly what I meant - a claim which concerns itself only with single results, and would never return multiple results and store these in a cell.

You're still referring to a claim, so I presume you mean that you want to know if you claim is allowable over the other reference.

In that case, you'd need to know what the rest of the reference says.

Yes, analysis for infringement is different than analysis for patentability.

G8zoST, you need to be more clear about which one you're asking about.

[G8ZoST]

Sorry this is in iterations:

I'm interested in getting a claim allowed in light of the existing claim.

The spec for the existing, quoted claim clearly states that single results are also stored in a single cell. It is obvious that claiming just this part is not allowable, since it would just be claiming a subset of what the existing claim covers.

But what if additionally conditions for the data model in the data store are claimed, which ensure that the query only ever returns a single result?

[JimIvey]

But what if additionally conditions for the data model in the data store are claimed, which ensure that the query only ever returns a single result?

Maybe.

[khazzah]

But what if additionally conditions for the data model in the data store are claimed, which ensure that the query only ever returns a single result?

Maybe.

I think Jim already explained why it's a "Maybe", G8Z.

If the spec describes that singular results from the query are also stored in a cell of a spreadsheet, and that's more or less what you're hoping to claim, I'd say you'd have a hard time getting that claim allowed.  Of course, it's really hard to say that definitively without knowing all the other facts and context, but doing more than what is claimed generally doesn't avoid infringement, and that which infringes if later anticipates if before.  Put more succinctly, you can't claim a subset of a prior art reference (well, unless you can show something non-obvious about eliminating an essential component of the prior art -- like a table with no legs).

[NJ Patent1]

Thomasm3:  UR feeble attempt at immitating Jack Kerouack's rambling style failed, miserably.  Take remedial English, or move to Lowell MA and hang-out with the Doluozs. K?

G8Z:  Did u get the message?  Claims are only part of a prior art patent.  Newbies forget this all the time, as in  but, but, but she only claimed this or only claimed that.  Interesting (yawn),  but not the whiole story.