3

Since we all understand chairs, that example can be misleading. Yes, having more or fewer of some feature can make for a patentable claim. It can be tricky to write a claim for the fewer case. "A chair comprising three legs" also describes a chair with four legs. "A chair having exactly three legs" could be designed-around by having a ...


3

It is a single document, and it is the prior art that is deemed to be the closest to the claimed invention. Should the closest prior art change during prosecution, you have to amend the preamble accordingly. You are also supposed to explicitly indicate in the background section of your patent application which among all cited documents is the closest prior ...


2

Found it in the database of the Spanish PTO: PDF of the document you are looking for


2

The legal provision is Rule 51.1 EPC: "[...] A renewal fee for the European patent application in respect of the coming year shall be due on the last day of the month containing the anniversary of the date of filing of the European patent application. The renewal fee in respect of the third year may not be validly paid more than six months before it ...


2

The actual question 'Would this discovery still be covered by the claim/patent before or would it be new?' has two questions as pointed out by Eric S and George White: Is the development covered by the claim? As stated by Eric S, yes, it is covered because the development is within the claimed scope. Is the development new with respect to the claim? It ...


2

It depends on what kind of operational workflow you want to be patented. In short, a workflow/process/method is patentable, if it has a tangible / measurable result, like a pizza recipe (take a dough, make it flat, put specific ingredient on it, heat it up to 180°C for 20-40 minutes). In general, European patents shall be granted for an invention, in all ...


2

Looks like you got confused because you read the word 'clear' in Art. 100(b) EPC. The Article refers to the claims being enabled, the description must be an enabling disclosure. The ground of Art. 100(b) EPC relates to the patentability requirement of Art. 83 EPC: 'The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear ...


1

In your example I'd say both 1 and 2 are not patentable since it would be obvious to someone skilled in making or designing chairs that you could make a chair with three or four legs. To be patentable an invention needs to be useful, novel and non-obvious. So if, for example a certain compound needs four chemicals to synthesize and you discover a process for ...


1

If someone gets a claim on using a specific drill design used between 1000 and 20,000 rpm. Then yes this covers the use of the specific drill design at 10,000 rpm since that speed is within the claimed range. Based on the comment by George White, I realize I might be thinking too narrowly. The EPO quote isn't quite related to the question of drilling speeds ...


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