2

I am reading Patent It Yourself (18th edition). In this, page 210 explains about advantages:

g. Advantages

Although it is optional, you may list the advantages of your invention in a narrative form. If you do so, make it the first paragraph in your Detailed Description section. Include this because it helps orient your readers to your subject matter, and helps sell the invention to the examiner or a judge who may rule on your patent. The advantages may also help distinguish your invention from a “judicial exception” that is not patentable. For example, if your invention does any of the following, explain in narrative form the shortcoming of the prior art and the advantage of your invention: improves another technology or technical field; improves the functioning of the computer itself; or includes a feature or function that is more than what is well- understood, routine, and conventional in the field. However, it’s important not to use language that a court may consider limiting; don’t use the words “invention” or “objects”.

The author says not to use words “invention” or “objects". But if I don’t use these words, how do I state the object of the current invention?

3

The invention

In the US, there is a line of reasoning where if you describe a characteristic of the invention, that characteristic becomes mandatory. For example, if I write "the invention includes a widget", then whatever I claim must include a widget. If it's not included explicitly, it can be imported into the claim implicitly. This is a problem, if the widget is really an optional feature.

However, the idea that you should then just omit the term "invention" to avoid this issue is a knee-jerk reaction to try to cover up bad drafting.

In reality, it is perfectly fine to say "invention", as long as you do so carefully. That is, use the word "invention" when you are actually describing essential characteristics of the invention, not just an embodiment.

Alternatives

You could say "in some embodiments, the apparatus comprises a widget".

The object

The object is slightly different. In some historical cases, a patent would be required to meet at least one of its objects. If it did not, it would lack utility.

Since including an object is really of no benefit to the applicant, and it could become problematic, it is relatively rare to include explicit object statements in a specification.

Cross-jurisdictional issues

In Europe, you are largely restrained from combining features from different embodiments. Thus the style of US drafting where every feature is its own embodiment can often lead to amendments from the description being refused as adding subject matter. Which rather limits your chances of success.

1

You can use embodiment instead of object. A common expression is also "as described herein" so you don't have to repeat all the time "the present invention". But I don't see how you can skip the word "invention" 100%, neither do I understand why one should do so. Also, I don't agree that the advantages are optional, in the sense that, no one obliges you to do so, but it is really stupid not to write something about what makes your invention an invention. I wouldn't rely on that book too much.

0

Rather stay away from using the words such as "advantage(s)" and phrases like "the object of the invention is ...". Rather merely mention the features or aspects of the invention. If a patent applicant makes promises for an invention, and those promises are not met, the patent can be declared invalid. See in this regard: Utility Futility? Usefulness of Inventions and ‘Fatal’ Promises Made in Patent Specifications.. Also: When there’s a “will”, there’s a promise. And: ​MORE THAN A PINKY PROMISE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS TO THE PROMISE DOCTRINE IN PATENT LAW

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.