Print

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

[Xdim]

Hello Everyone,

I have a question about how to position dependent claims to most effectively cover an invention. I'll use the following imaginary example to illustrate my question:

(Independent claim:)
1. A device, comprising:
(a) first part [etc.];
(b) second part [etc.].

(first dependent claim)
2. Device of claim 1, wherein second part (b) further includes ... [etc.]

Now I want to have second dependent claim which is more specific about the first part (a) of the device.
I can do the following:
(second dependent claim - case 1)
3. Device of claim 1, wherein first part (a) further includes ... [etc.]

or
(second dependent claim - case 2)
3. Device of claim 2, wherein first part (a) further includes ... [etc.]

My questions is:
What's the difference between case 1 and case 2? or, if I use case 1 then would it also cover case 2?

I hope I've made my question clear. I appreciate your input!

Xdim

[Isaac]

Assuming that all of the claims 1-3 are valid, then the two sets of claims have identical coverage because the independent claim 1s are identical will be necessarily infringed whenever a dependent claim is infringed.  If you want to explore differences in coverage between the two sets, you should think about the possibility that one or more broader claims might be found invalid.

Claim 3 of case 2 is is only infringed by devices containing the modified a and a modified b, and is therefore narrower than the claim 3 of case 1.   Narrower claims can have an increased likely of being found valid but a decreased likely of being infringed by a defendant.   However if the further including clauses do not add much patentable weight, the narrow scheme is going to be more of a hindrance than a help.

[Xdim]

Thank you!

If the independent claim 1 was found valid and
if I had used dependent claim 3 of case 1, then
would a device having (b) of claim 2 and (a) of claim 3
be considered infringing my claims?

Further,
in case the independent claim 1 might be found invalid
would it be a good strategy to have the dependent in both cases as
3. Device of claim 1, wherein first part (a) further includes ... [etc.]
4. Device of claim 2, wherein first part (a) further includes ... [etc.]
?

Xdim