Print

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

[newguy]

Is it considered proper form to use dependent claims which rely on a "means for" independent claim and then specify precise means? It seems redundant if the spec covers the variable means. Anything gained from this form? I've seen this and I am not sure if it is proper.

Example:

What is claimed is:
1) A golf club comprising:

--xxxxx-description including handle;

and means for varying said handle position.

2) The golf club according to claim 1, wherein said means for varying position is a screw.

[Wiscagent]

If you are using a "means for" construction in your claims, then you should have a corresponding section in the specification that clearly defines that the "means for varying said handle position may include a screw, a ratchet, a clamp ..." or something to that effect.  There is nothing wrong in having a dependent claim that limits that list.   And if there is some prior art disclosing the gadget with a clamp (but not a screw), the dependent claim might allow you to work around that prior art during prosecution or litigation.

[newguy]

Thank you!