1

I have a logic block that has 3 logic circuits: a first logic circuit, a second logic circuit and a third logic circuit.

When all three circuit claims are chained, I have:

  1. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.

  2. (..), as in claim 3, wherein the logic block further comprises a second logic circuit.

  3. (..), as in claim 4, wherein the logic block further comprises a third logic circuit.

When all three circuit claims are not chained, is the following correct?

  1. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.

  2. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.

  3. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.

Thank you.

Weng

1

All of your claims seem correct.

However, there is a more concise way to include all the claims (for jurisdictions which do not have additional fees for multiple claim dependencies).

This is based on the idea that "further" is unnecessary in your claims 3 to 5. I could not find any Court decision which has considered this point. However, as a point of construction, it seems that including "further" either has no meaning, or is an additional limitation. That is, omitting "further" should lead to a claim which is no narrower than your current one.

In other words, you could quite validly have:

  1. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.

  2. (..), as in claim 3, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.

  3. (..), as in claim 4, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.

Based on this, you could combine claims 3–5 with claims 6–8. This would arrive at:

  1. (..), as in claim 1, wherein the logic block comprises a first logic circuit.

  2. (..), as in claim 1 or 3, wherein the logic block comprises a second logic circuit.

  3. (..), as in claim 1, 3 or 4, wherein the logic block comprises a third logic circuit.

This reduces the number of claims (if that is beneficial) and provides a basis for the combination of features (where needed, such as in Europe).

  • I have never seen usage of "as in claim 1 or 3". Is it allowed in US and other countries? – daniel Feb 25 '16 at 13:26
  • 1
    Multiple claim dependencies like that are allowed in most countries (including the US and Europe). However, in the US it attracts exceptionally high official fees, so is very rare. In contrast, multiple claim dependencies are typical for Europe, where there are no such fees. – Maca Feb 25 '16 at 13:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.