2

We always try to make our claims scopes as much generic as possible at the same time overtly generalized claims often fall under obviousness.

Is there any criteria or specific rules to measure a claim's obviousness and generalization scale? If so what are they?

Improve this question
1
  • The answers to this question about obviousness may be what you are looking for.
    – the Europeist
    Commented Jul 30, 2021 at 7:14

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Overly broad claims can run afoul of novelty and obviousness issues. How broad a claim you can get allowed and enforced is entirely based of the uniqueness of the invention in relation to the prior art. In a sense the scale is binary - rejected or allowed.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    True. But its hard to trade off between. Where can I get the guidelines?
    – Sazzad Hissain Khan
    Commented Jul 30, 2021 at 17:59
  • 1
    It really isn’t a matter of guidelines. There are rules for an examiner making obviousness rejection and there are grounds of rebuttal. See the MPEP for the rules the examiners are under. The strategies used in prosecution of patents by professionals change with every interesting federal circuit and SCOTUS case decision. It is a deep and subtle art.
    – George White ♦
    Commented Jul 30, 2021 at 22:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .