1

I mean scope in the programming sense, not the claim scope sense.

For example, if I have claims like:

  1. The system comprising an A.
  2. The system of claim 1, wherein the A includes a B.

Clearly, if the next dependent claim depends on 2, it inherits "the" from B:

  1. The system of claim 2, wherein the B includes a C.

But what about another dependent claim that depends on the independent claim? Does it inherit "the" from another dependent claim, in a different branch of the claim tree?

For example, which is correct for the next dependent claim?

  1. The system of claim 1, wherein the A includes a B and an X.

or

  1. The system of claim 1, wherein the A includes the B and an X.
Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Each depend claim has the meaning as if all the claims in its path back to the independent claim are incorporated. Claim 4 could not be

The system of claim 1, wherein the A includes the B and an X.

because B has not been introduced. Claim 4 has no connection with claim 2 or 3. This is an area of patent law that is completely logical.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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