Talk:Patent claim

Copy of material removed from Patent - we may wish to include it here. Kcordina Talk 12:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Patent claims are typically of the form of a long noun phrase, e.g.:


 * "An apparatus for catching mice, comprising a base member for placement on a flat surface, a spring member..."
 * "A chemical for cleaning windows, comprising approximately 10–15% ammonia, ..."
 * "A method for computing future life expectancies, the method comprising gathering personal data including X, Y, Z, ..."

Each word of a claim is considered an "element" or "limitation" of the claim. In order to exclude someone from using a patented invention in a court, the patent owner will have to demonstrate to the court that what the other person is using is included within the scope of at least one claim of the patent.

For this reason, it is more valuable to obtain patent claims that include the absolute minimal set of limitations that differentiate a new invention over what came before (the "prior art"). On the other hand, the fewer the limitations in a claim, the more likely it is that the claim will cover or "read on" what came before and be rejected during examination or found to be invalid at a later time. The United States is currently moving towards more rigid claim interpretations by limiting the patent owners expansive reading of claim limitations under the "doctrine of equivalents". The practice elsewhere in the world differs.


 * Thank you very much! I have merged and reworded this matter within the article. --Edcolins 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Article rife with errors
This article is filled with errors that misrepresent several aspects of patent claims according to U.S. practice and law (as outlined below). The original author of the paper appears to be a European attorney with little knowledge of U.S. law. I recommend that this article include a disclaimer that it does not refer to U.S. patent claims or that the article be retitled to clearly reflect that it should only be consulted for information concerning claims within EPO or EU national applications.

(1) Embodiments disclosed in U.S. patent applications typically have nothing to do with dependent claims, so the section on dependent claims is very misleading. On occasion, a practitioner might include an independent claim for each embodiment disclosed in the application, but rarely would draft an application to have a disclosed embodiment for each dependent claim (patent applications typically include at least 15 dependent claims). I challenge anyone to provide a reputable source (Chisum, Landis, etc) that corroborates the author's description of dependent claims in U.S. practice.

(2) The statement-

"For example, does a "base" include a "set of legs"? A dependent claim, including the phrase, "wherein said base comprises a set of legs," if allowed by the patent examiner, clarifies that it does"

is entirely incorrect. Instead, if I recite a base in an independent claim, and "wherein the base includes a set of legs" in a dependent claim, it means that base recited in the independent claim is not required to have a set of legs (in contrast to the original author's conclusion). This doctrine is known as "claim differentiation" which results from the fact that dependent claims must be different in scope than the independent claims from which they depend. So, the original author's conclusions regarding the usage of dependent claims is entirely incorrect.

(3) The original author appears to be a European patent attorney, as many of his (or her) statements regarding patent law do not apply in the US. For instance, in the U.S., a method claim that depends from an apparatus claim is typically invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112 (see IPXL v. Amazon, Fed. Cir. 2005).

(4) The section on claim interpretation is incorrect/misleading in view of the Federal Circuit's 2005 Phillips decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas1051 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --Edcolins 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan
I think that the sentence "In recent years, Japan's system has become more peripheral, while the system used in the United States has become more peripheral" is mistaken. the word "while" suggest a contrast. If the situation in Japan and the UK is the same, then the word "while" is inappropriate. If the situation in Japan and the UK is different, then one of them became more central and not peripheral as written. Unfortunately I’m new to patents and don’t which of the options is the right one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.113.198 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you very much for your note. I have added the tag for now to indicate that the section should be improved. Cheers, --Edcolins 11:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Reach-through claims
Could someone add a section about "reach-through" claims? Kaldari 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to, but I'm not an expert ... three IP Law classes 15 years ago in law school and not taking the Patent Bar has made me rusty. If anyone else who wants to do it, go ahead.  It's been listed on WP:AR2. Bearian

Thank you

 * num num num --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Line ?!
Something's wrong with this line:

In recent years, Japan's system has become more peripheral,[2] while the system used in the United States has become more peripheral --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I have corrected the mistake, but still, the comparison between peripheral and central claiming systems is a touchy issue... Still some improvements needed here. --Edcolins (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Beauregard Claims
Some of the conclusions of this section are wildly inaccurate. For instance, if you claim a "computer readable storage medium, coupled to a processor, and capable of executing instructions that perform a method comprising:..." you get coverage over RAM and processor caches. The section seems to indicate that these claim types are becoming unpopular because of the dropping popularity of insertable media (CDs, DVDs, Floppys, etc) and therefore coverage would be essentially useless. However, this is entirely wrong, as a computer program must inherently be stored on some type of computer readable storage medium in order to execute.

Furthermore, the section only briefly hints at the interpretation differences between "computer readable medium" and "computer readable storage medium". The first covers both "air" and "water" as propagated signals can travel in these mediums and be read from these mediums, even if it is only instantaneously retrievable at a specific point in time. The latter requires the ability to read data at will from the storage, without regard to time (ie, stored until an unforeseen point of time in the future), and therefore does not include air or water (ie modulated signals, etc).Mojodaddy (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. DMacks (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Claim (patent) → Patent claim – WP:NATURALDIS. "Patent claim" is a very common term, and already redirects here. bd2412 T 16:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy and easy support Red Slash 22:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.