Print

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

[medicherla.ravi]

can any body pl through light on the purpose of "wherein".can we
assume it to be equivalent to characterized..

regards

[pentazole]

Maybe the chemical arts where most of my work is focused is the oddball, but I have never in my 2 year experience seen a US patent that uses the terms "characterized by".  I only see that in European patents, and they generally take the place of wherein in the US equivalents.

[Bill Richards]

I only see that in European patents, and they generally take the place of wherein in the US equivalents.

It's been a bit since I've delved into an EP patent, but I don't believe that's true.  In EP, what comes before "characterized by" is generally prior art and that which comes after is the invention.  (Kind of like a Jepson claim.)  I see "wherein" as a further explanation of the claim element or the like.

[Richard LI]

I agree with Bill. Not only EP patents use "wherein"(or where in) and "characterised in (or by)", but also Chinese patents uses this kind of terms. Specifically, "wherein" is used to  supply the claim or add further elements into the claim. While the term "characterised in" is used to separate the whole claim into two parts, the former portion indicates the title of the claimed subject matter of the technical solution of the invention and the technical features necessary for the definition of the claim subject matter which are part of the most related prior art, and the latter portion states the technical features which distinguish it from the most related prior art.

[BotchedExperiment]

For what it's worth, I agree with Bill and Richard.

I was just looking at the word "characterized" yesterday in regard to claiming an invention, and I have decided to not ever use it in US applications, and to be very very careful in using it for something that's going PCT.

[pentazole]

I agree with you guys and disagree with myself in the sense that I was referring to specific situations where it's a dependent claim reciting one limiation "the widget of claim 1 wherein the color is read" vs "the widgent of claim 1 characterized by the color being red".  But you're right my analogy does not apply in the broader sense.