I am trying to decide if adding a lot of extra claims is worthwhile; in this case it would add about 15 more over just using the Markush group, due to repeating in context of 3 different independents.
Apparently there are arguments about "closed-ness" regarding how a Markush group is introduced, e.g. "...consisting of" or "...selected from the group consisting of" or maybe "...which may include". Assume for now that one of the latter two would be used, as they are less closed. Assume the group as currently written claims a method having 6 components a) thru f), followed by a final component
g) combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in (a)-(f), inclusive;
Would this be stronger, or in general be a better strategy, if all of a) through f) are rewritten as dependents? Or is using less-restrictive language for introducing the group sufficient to cover future issues that may come up – such as finding that another option outside the a) thru f) group can also apply?