the invention concerned comprises three components, and one of them is an elastomer which does not contain a functional group (4). I used this term "an elastomer which does not contain a functional group (4)" in claims as well, but now I'm a little bit confused because in Examples, it's basically a past tense and I'm not sure if I should change the tense of (4) (to "did" not) or not. I want to keep the term as it is because it is one element that the invention comprises, but should I change the tense? Or should I change the term (like, elastomer containing no functional group)?

Thank you so much for your help.

  • 1
    “did not contain“ sounds wrong to me, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter which tense you use as long as the invention is clear. I bet one could write a patent in first person saying I am the invention. Anyways, what I'm trying to say, I don't think there is an answer to your question. – DonQuiKong Aug 10 at 17:19
  • Thank you for your answer, DonQuiKong. Ill make it my priority to clarify the invention as much as possible. – Cochon noir Aug 17 at 8:49

I do not do chemical patents but have seen "substantially free of XYZ", and "not containing XYZ").You would not use "did not" in a claim ever. If "did" was used in the specification it would imply an actual experiment. It is important to distinguish between actual experiments/data and speculation about what would happen.

  • Thank you for your answer, I'll change the term as you suggested. Thank you! – Cochon noir Aug 17 at 8:50

Your Answer

 
discard

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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