Why inventor will use "consisting" instead of "comprising" transitional phrase in a patent claim?

If a transitional phrase, "comprising" covers broader scopes than a transitional phrase, "consisting", then why on earth an inventor will use "consisting" transitional phrase in his/her patent claim?

1 Answer 1


To avoid prior art. If you invent a 3 wheel car and you say “comprising 3 wheels” you have not specified a 3 wheel car since comprising is open ended you have essentially said “at least 3 wheels”. Consisting of 3 wheels narrows to avoid the prior art. There are better examples but fundamentally cliam scope is a balance. Claim too much and it’s already been done, claim too narrow and get designed around.

You must log in to answer this question.

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