0

could I use below 2 independent claims in a patent?

  1. The apparatus comprise A, B, C:
  2. The apparatus might further comprise D, wherein whether D is needed or not depending on the function of the apparatus..

Is this claim 2 acceptable, pls teach me if you could. have a great day.

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Is there some reason you can't just write "2. The apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising D whereby [recite the benefit that adding D accomplishes]"? The whereby is optional but it indicates to the reader why one would want to add D.
    – bhuff36
    Commented Nov 12 at 14:43
  • Hi, @bhuff36, I hope you are well, the drawing include D, and furthermore, most of the product should be with D, but some occasion, D is not essential.----my purpose is to broad the protection, and I am OK with D but if possible, I'd like to remove D from independent claim 1, thanks.
    – cmabill
    Commented Nov 13 at 8:56
  • If it works without D, and you feel you have a chance to clear the prior art without D, then by all means write the main independent claim without D.
    – bhuff36
    Commented Nov 13 at 11:03
  • Note that you didn't specify whether you are writing original claims or you are presenting amended claims. It may not be proper to newly present a claim without D if it was previously described as essential.
    – bhuff36
    Commented Nov 13 at 11:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

It is vague and the conditional is not needed and is confusing. “Might” is inherent in a dependent claim.

You do not need to define the benefit of D, just claim 1 further comprising D.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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