3

The invention In the US, there is a line of reasoning where if you describe a characteristic of the invention, that characteristic becomes mandatory. For example, if I write "the invention includes a widget", then whatever I claim must include a widget. If it's not included explicitly, it can be imported into the claim implicitly. This is a problem, if the ...


2

In the last several years in the U.S. there is a trend to almost eliminate any specific discussion of advantages or even objectives. Anything you say can be held against you. The wide end advantageously fixed at the base . . . Can be taken by a judge that any embodiment that does not have that property is, by definition, not your invention. So even if ...


2

You're on the right track. Advantages can advantageously be used to link a specific structure to a specific result, which can help in lots of ways, particularly in "means-plus-function" claiming. They can also help satisfy "Best-mode" requirements. For me, I like the advantages to sort of track the claim language, especially for dependant claims, to answer "...


1

You can use embodiment instead of object. A common expression is also "as described herein" so you don't have to repeat all the time "the present invention". But I don't see how you can skip the word "invention" 100%, neither do I understand why one should do so. Also, I don't agree that the advantages are optional, in the sense that, no one obliges you to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible