Print

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

[datuk]

I am not sure if these claims are logically correct but the examiner did not object so far. However, I think there must be a better way to write this

1. A method of making a cake comprising

input some requirement
adding element 1;
adding element 2;

wherein if said requirement is a vegetarian cake then element 1 is vitamin A and element 2 is vegetable.

2. A method according to claim 1 wherein if said requirement is for me then element 1 is vegetable and element 2 is vitamin A.

Any suggestion/alternatives ?

[Wiscagent]

How about this?

1.  A method of making a cake comprising:
        input some requirement
        adding element 1;
        adding element 2.

2.  The method of claim 1 wherein:
        element 1 is a vegetable; and
        element 2 is vitamin A.

There is no need to clutter up claim 1 with “wherein if …”; also the introduction of the term “vegetarian” is unnecessary.  A third claim, intermediate in scope between 1 and 2 might also be helpful:

3.  The method of claim 1 wherein neither element 1 nor element 2 is an animal product.

[datuk]

Thanks for your help. the main problem is that I need to include the Vitamin A and Vegetable to distinguish prior art. At the same time I do not want to limit it to requirement being vegetable cake as it could be something else depending on the order of the element.

Therefore, I am wondering how "wherein IF" works in distinguishing prior art ?

The alternative that I am considering is " wherein element is selected from a group consisting : Vitamin 1 and vegetable"

As I see this will ensure vitamin 1 and vegetable be limited regardless.