0

Nothing I have seen sounds right for my little invention, so I wonder what I'm missing. The invention needs at least one X somewhere on at least the first side of Y for the minimum invention to work. In the preferred embodiments, one or more additional X at particular locations and/or slope directions on Y adds value and narrows the claim. So the dependent claims need to say: at least one X on the second side of Y. at least one X proximal to the distal end of Y. at least one X proximal to the proximal end of Y. at least one X to slope left. at least one X to slope right. What is a good way to say this?

Improve this question
11
  • Something like.. A Y with integrated X suitable for bananas, comprising: a Y having a handle and a blade, the blade having a first side, a second side, a distal end, and a proximal end; and at least one X on the first side, wherein the at least one X is a delineation on the surface of the blade that depicts a guide mark, wherein the guide mark is constructed relative to the distal end. 2. The Y tool defined in claim 1, wherein the at least one X is on the second side. 3. The Y tool defined in claim 1, wherein the at least one X is located proximal to the blade distal end. 4., etc.
    – Pro Se Hole
    Jan 21, 2020 at 13:06
  • 1
    Not posting this as an answer because I am not sure if I understood you. 1. Whatever comprising: at least one X, the at least one X comprising a first X at location A. 2. ...wherein the at least one X further comprises a second X at location B. 3. ...wherein the at least one X further comprises a second X at location C. Am I getting it correctly? Does that answer your question?
    – the Europeist
    Jan 21, 2020 at 17:26
  • the Europeist: How about this? Independent claim: Comprising Y with side A and B; and at least one X on location A. Dependent claims: The at least one X on location B. The at least one X on a more specific location on Y. The at least one X on another specific location on X. ....Question: does "The at least one" still mean "at least one" for each location area?
    – Pro Se Hole
    Jan 22, 2020 at 0:32
  • 1
    That is wrong in my opinion because then you have a same X in two different locations. You cannot use that definition to refer to one X in one place and another X in another place.
    – the Europeist
    Jan 22, 2020 at 7:15
  • 1
    I am confused. What is the relevance of these angles in the question how to draft the claims? Can the same X be in two different locations simultaneous? If the answer is no, then simply relating "the at least one X" with two locations is not correct.
    – the Europeist
    Jan 22, 2020 at 19:44

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

You could draft it like this:

  1. Device comprising: at least one X, the at least one X comprising a first X at location A.

  2. Device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one X further comprises a second X at location B.

  3. Device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one X further comprises a second X at location C.

Improve this answer
2
  • I noted you said a second X at location C, would that not need to be a third X?
    – Pro Se Hole
    Jan 26, 2020 at 20:16
  • @ProSeHole If the dependent claim depends upon claim 1, then it is second X, if it depends upon claim 2 then it is third X. The number of Xs you have in each claim determines the numeral thereof. In this case, drafting the X of claim 3 as third X results in lack of clarity because there is no second X in the subject-matter of claim 3+claim 1.
    – the Europeist
    Jan 26, 2020 at 21:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .