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?

  • 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 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 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 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 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 at 19:44
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 | |
  • I noted you said a second X at location C, would that not need to be a third X? – Pro Se Hole Jan 26 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 at 21:05

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.