2

Given that software should be shown and claimed in a hardware context software patents typically include a boilerplate, both in figures and text, identifying PC, servers, internet connections, cloud hosts, etc. Those boilerplate differ a lot in scope and level of detail and some seem to rely to really dated architectures.

Given that almost always patent application aren't copyrighted and it's possible to reuse freely snips of them, then are there some preferred/recommended snips of text and figures to describe the hardware and software architectures on which a software patent embodiment is embodied at the state of the art of 2014?

Is there a way to describe the IT architecture embodiment such that is enough detailed to be actually considered “embodied” but also abstract enough to not to tie on technologies that would be obsolete in a few years (sure before the 20 years patent life)?

Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

In some places it is important to be detailed to be sure that you have enabled someone to make and use the invention. That enabled use does not need to be state-of-the art for ennoblement purposes but does need to meet the "best mode" requirement. However, never use "the invention" in regard to something that is just an example of one way to do it. Presenting multiple, different, specific ways to do something usually better supports broader claims than one abstract way of doing it.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.