4

You an do this, in fact it doesn't even need the third claim to be independent. I do not know EPO law very well but there are innumerable U.S. patents with a claim 1 to a transmitter that sends a particular signal to a receiver, a claim 2 to receiver that receives that same particular signal from a transmitter; and a system including both a transmitter and a ...


1

It depends on your claims that end up being granted. You can file an application with both claims to the component and to claims to the modified whole system. It may be that your component is a particularly shaped cam and it makes the whole device unique. But the cam itself, sitting on a shelf, out of context, might not be new. If you have a claim to the ...


1

There is no formal definition, just the meaning which is derived from usage over the years. Typically an apparatus is a single device. Multiple devices which work together would be a system. In practice, you would not often refer to something as an apparatus, but rather as the thing you are claiming, so a "computer", "mobile device", "base station", "...


1

It is flat wrong. You are correct, a claim of one statutory class cannot depend from a claim of a different statuary class. In this case the wording of claim 18 is actually apparatus wording so the only thing really wrong is the one word "method". Intel could most likely fix this with a petition for a Certificate of Correction. Separately, a method claim ...


1

There is no hard and fast distinction between a system and an apparatus and it doesn't matter much. The actual statutory categories do not include either term. In 35 USC section 101 the listed categories are process, machine, [article of] manufacture, composition of matter and improvements to any of those things. An article of manufacture is something made ...


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