4

An independent claim will always encompass all of its dependent claims. That means that something infringing a dependent claim will always infringe the independent claim too. A dependent claim is just a narrow version of the independent claim. So let's imagine you would invalidate a dependent claim, e.g. a+b+c. Then your abc would still infringe the ...


3

You can't infringe a dependent claim without also infringing the independent claim (at least I haven't seen any case where it happened, since dependent claims are subsets of the independent claim). You can infringe an independent claim without infringing a dependant claim. So using your example (and changing "a device as claimed in claim 1" to "the device ...


2

It's been awhile since I did this, but IIRC (if I recall correctly ), one may file a CIP at any time during pendency of the original non-provisional and its descendents, which is the only way to "add new material" to an application already filed. The new material in a CIP only gets priority of the CIP filing date unless it cites one or more non-expired ...


2

I did my own research and found out that: Among 3,019,895 utility patents published 04/01/2005 through 16/01/2018, 1,707 patents (%0.057) have at least one independent claim starting with 'The' article. Thus, the chance is about %0.057.


1

A dependent claim references either an independent claim or a previous dependent claim. Note, in the U.S. multiply dependent claims ""as claimed in any one of the preceding claims" or "as claimed in either one of claims 1 or 2, etc." is strongly discouraged. The opposite is true in the EPO and many other places. A dependent claim inherits all of the ...


1

You can't remove anything required by a referenced claim but you can add to it or you can narrow it. For example - The method of claim 1 where the hammer used in step b is a claw hammer. Or - the method of claim 1 where the dusting is accomplished with a feather.


1

Is it possible for a US independent claim to start with 'the'? Yes. Typically you would not have an independent claim starting with "the". That is because the term lacks an antecedent, so would generally be objected to. However, this is only a tendency, and not an inviolable rule. So there is a reasonable chance that at least some patents have been issued ...


1

Update: Turns out there was an earlier provisional, so this answer no longer applies. I've left it for posterity. Because the first non-provisional was filed less than a year ago, a simple approach would be to convert the non-provisional into a provisional application. This is allowed by 37 CFR § 1.53(c)(2), which provides: An application for patent ...


1

What you are talking about is called "unity". In most patent offices (in all of them I would guess) a set of claims must relate to a single general concept. If not, the applicant is required to keep only part of it. The reason behind this is that for different inventions different searches are required (and they are not willing to do it when you pay for only ...


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