Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with claim-construction
Search options not deleted
user 28666
1
vote
1
answer
43
views
When acting as one's own lexicographer, is there any prohibition against functional definition?
Suppose my claims recite a "memory" (in the context of a computer arts invention). The novelty of the invention is not in the memory itself.
Next, suppose I define memory in the specification as broad …
- 1,870
3
votes
What are the implications of including human beings in the description and claims?
I've been told that using human beings in any context is a problem. It's not obvious to me why.
According to the law (in U.S.), patent claims can not recite a human being per se. See https://www.usp …
- 1,870
2
votes
How can I use a "for each" clause in a patent claim?
If you really want a claim as narrow as a particular loop, there is a much simpler way to do it than to port your loop to claimese: simply recite "step for processing points" and include a flowchart a …
- 1,870
1
vote
Accepted
An optional step that does limit the claim
Sometimes it's helpful to boil these kinds of issues down to their essence.
Claim 1: A method, comprising, in order:
a. starting a timer
b. optionally snapping one's fingers
c. clapping only if one d …
- 1,870
1
vote
how can you say the equivalence of "at least zero" in a claim?
Is there a right way to construct this claim?
Yes, it's "storing a plurality of user profiles".
Since "zero or more" is the same thing as "optionally" and non-limiting, just don't mention it at all. …
- 1,870
2
votes
can subjective words be used in claims?
As written, your claim is not limited to computer implementation and covers mental processes as well, which renders it unpatentably abstract.
Assuming you limit to a computer-implemented method, such …
- 1,870
1
vote
a list of elements versus a list comprising elements
So would a competitor bypass infringement of claim 1 if their implementation identifies a list that also includes other elements not having said "some condition"?
Yes, and this must be so. Otherwise …
- 1,870
2
votes
Accepted
in a method claim, how to word it such that the order of certain steps can vary?
Generally the order listed in the claim is not assumed to be limiting. Whether there is dependence between the steps is something the specification should ideally make clear explicitly (but it can als …
- 1,870
1
vote
referencing the same device on a software method claim
is this technically limiting the claim to a user only ever using one device to complete an instance of the process?
Yes, but to exploit this a freeloader would have to require all users of their ser …
- 1,870
0
votes
defining a base value for objects referenced in an optional step of a method claim
I just need to know whether this claim can be rejected on indefiniteness caused by the optional step to identify a third score. I want to know whether the wherein clause suffices to make the third sc …
- 1,870