2

Concerning the European patent practice, most probably you would receive an objection on the grounds of lack of clarity because there is an inconsistency between the scope of the independent claim and the scope of the dependent claim. In the scope of the independent claim you have a system/method with three features/steps, whereas in the scope of the ...


2

I can imagine a case like this - claim 1. A system with an A and a transmitter module and a receiver module. Claim 2, the system of claim 1 where the transmitter module and the receiver module are comprised in a transceiver module where a common antenna is used. In your example "wherein the antenna is the handle" is fine. I wouldn't think of it as two ...


2

First of all you should consider whether the technical feature you are referring to is necessary for the definition of your invention, maybe you can claim your invention without any such feature. In the event that it should be part of the claimed subject-matter, you should try defining it in a generic way so that all the alternatives are encompassed. For ...


1

From finnegan.com/files/Upload/FCN_Aug10_5.html: The Court noted that “[w]here a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Id. at 10 (second alteration in original) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). ...


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