Print

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

[TaiwanIP]

Here is a claim I'm looking at:
6. A keyboard comprising a control circuit as in any of claim 1 to claim 5.

Obviously, this is a combination claim containing the subcombination of the control circuit. Is this okay? Why or why not? I personally have never used this style. In the past, I have always drafted a combination claim that comprises the subcombination and at least one other element.

[smgsmc]

Here is a claim I'm looking at:
6. A keyboard comprising a control circuit as in any of claim 1 to claim 5.

Obviously, this is a combination claim containing the subcombination of the control circuit. Is this okay? Why or why not? I personally have never used this style. In the past, I have always drafted a combination claim that comprises the subcombination and at least one other element.

It's not clear to me that you have a greater scope of protection if the keyboard comprises the control circuit and no other element.  If the control circuit is the inventive element, I would flip the dependent claim around.

6.  The control circuit of claim 1, further comprising:
a keyboard configured to ....

[TaiwanIP]

It's not clear to me that you have a greater scope of protection if the keyboard comprises the control circuit and no other element. 

That's a good point and something that I overlooked. For this reason and others, I'm going to recommend drafting a set of claims directed to the combination. Perhaps the combination will come in handy during prosecution: we would have a circuit for a keyboard and also a keyboard including the circuit and other elements, essentially making the intended use for the subcombination (in a keyboard) relevant.