0

Independent claim: comprising: an X attachable to a Y. Does this establish an antecedent existence of Y to where the dependent claim should now say "the Y" or does the dependent claim need to first say "further comprising a Y" to make Y exist as a part of the invention?

4
  • Example: 2018 Knife with Grip US9889573B2, the claim starts with "A knife, the knife characterized by a handle, a blade having"....novel characteristics. The invention seems to be the grip structure made onto the blade, not the handle. Would it be an infringement to sell just the blade attachable to a handle without a handle? Blade blanks without handles are an item commonly sold in the market place. Would it have been better had they left the handle out? Would saying: attachable to a handle have worked better? – Pro Se Hole Dec 8 '19 at 16:59
  • 1
    The handle is clearly recited in this claim. It would be broader to just claim the blade. "A blade, suitable to be coupled with a handle . . . " would leave the handle out of the claim. – George White Dec 8 '19 at 17:08
  • So, that also means then "suitable to be coupled with a handle" does not introduce a handle as far as antecedent flow? – Pro Se Hole Dec 8 '19 at 23:55
  • 1
    i did not answer the question because I'm not sure. I would assume, since the item is only brought in inferentially there is no antecedent and if you wanted to have it been an actual element in a dependent claim you would need to introduce it as such. – George White Dec 9 '19 at 1:20

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.