Examples I have seen seem to follow the "at least one X" language with a first X, second X type language. However, My X is an indicium delineating an angle, such as 45° or 15°, with a special stated relationship to the device. I have tried to portray that "at least one X" can be anywhere on a larger particular part of the device in the independent claim. Then in the dependent claim, at least one X in one area within the larger area of the device and/or at least one X in another area on the device and/or at least one X in still another area of the device, then (within any of the locations), one or more facing toward the front of the device and/or one or more Xs facing toward the back of the device, and then (within any of the locations and either way they or it are facing) at least one X with this specific value, and/or at least one X with another specific value. So far, the at least one indicium, followed by a first, second, third indicium, makes it look like a long list of confusion and more limiting than I like or leaving out more possibilities than I like. If say at least one X in the independent claim can I then say further comprising a plurality of X in following dependent claims? Nothing I have found sounds right. Probably not answerable, alas.

  • 1
    You have now explained that X is an indicium, not a physical thing. Is is a printed mark or is it a way of saying a location? A location is not a positively claimed element, the thing at the location is a claimed element. If it is a printed line there is a "printed matter" doctrine that you should be aware of. And if it is a claimed element you can have "an X" in the independent claim and lots more X's in dependent claims.
    – George White
    Jan 27 '20 at 1:33
  • This is a tool with an integrated angle guide. The guide is a series of lines with reference numbers positioned to guide a specific part of the tool relative to a workpiece. Is the guide is an element and not just printed information? I was thinking of calling the lines "angle indicator index markings" not that it matters. A few more angle indicators in specific locations on the tool improve the tool, as long as they keep their angle relative to a specific part of the tool. Jan 27 '20 at 11:20
  • 1
    Even if you have a reference point ('a specific part' say 'Y'), you should have one reference line too to express angles. First determine the reference line. Then your angles will be specific and meaningful. Expression of position will require distance from reference point and angle from the reference line. Then it should be OK to mention number of 'X's in your independent claim and can put limitations defining position (angle and distance) of each of 'X'. Another dependent claim may disclose your 'indicium' claiming to facilitate positioning of 'X's. May refer Appl No.14/378346 in PAIR. Jan 27 '20 at 16:28

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.