using "examples" in the specifications to give concrete teachings but not be limited to them

Question

In my patent application, there is paragraph at the bottom that explicitly states that "examples" are for the purpose of illustrating the invention in a concrete way.

Let's suppose that in the method claim, there are 5 steps.

The first step requires "implicitly associating a constant value to a data object saved in a database".

Implicit meaning the "constant" value is stored somewhere else and is not tied to the object.

There are many ways to accomplish this, but I gave 3 examples of how to ensure that the value remains constant throughout the course of the life of the data object.

My question is, does this limit Step 1 to these 3 examples?

That's not the objective. The claim should include a step 1 that can be accomplished in anyway. The claim is the 5 steps together. Step 1 alone is not novel. So the intent is for Step 1 to have broad scope and not be limited to the three given examples.

Answer 1

The claim should include a step 1 that can be accomplished in any[ ]way.

Ah, that old chestnut. Well let's get away from software for a moment and consider the scope of a claim including a "fastener". The specification might give insight on a few possible ways of fastening that the inventor had in mind but nobody thinks the claim should be limited by them. While presumably a structural term, actually "fastener" in this context is essentially indistinguishable from a functional term that can mean anything that can fasten things together.

Now back to software. Unfortunately the reality right now is that recitations like "implicitly associating a constant value to a data object saved in a database" are not treated as structural. Instead they are much more likely to be treated as means-plus-function and thereby limited to the specific means disclosed in the specification.

One possible way around the problem is to recite a means at a higher level of abstraction and then clearly link a stepwise breakdown in the specification that yields the same overall scope as what one would originally have wanted to claim. It should then be possible to have further examples, e.g., if necessary for a complete enablement, that are not limiting the scope. (Note that for technical reasons one must be sure to avoid a "single means claim".)