Dependant claims
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Mar 23, 2010 4:25 AM EDT |
I have a question about the way that dependant parent claims are explained in this article. Andrew says that you only have to look at the independant claims. If you don't violate them, then you're not violating the dependant claims either. Using the red car example from the article:Quoting:Claim 1) A transport system consisting of: If your car is green, you don't violate the patent says Andrew, no matter what the dependant claims are. But what if there's a claim like this? Quoting:Claim 2) The system of claim 1 but with the color of the car is green Can such claims exist? I.e. can dependant claims only add stuff to the original claim, or can they also variate on the original claim? |
| ciaran Mar 23, 2010 8:02 AM EDT |
I'm not an expert, but my guess is that if the colour of the car wasn't fundamental, it shouldn't be in the independent claim. So if someone wanted to claim red cars and green cars, they would either have to move "red" from claim 1 into a dependent claim, like:Quoting:Claim 1) A transport system consisting of: * a car, * with shiny plastic panels Claim 2) The system of claim 1 but with the color of the car is red Claim 3) The system of claim 1 but with the color of the car is green or, maybe Claim 1 would have be be "a car with a specific colour". Maybe there's a patent drafting rule that dependent claims can only add to the independent claim, never modify it. |
| dinotrac Mar 23, 2010 9:46 AM EDT |
ciaran - Dependent claims are in addition to the independent claims, and rely on them. They do not change anything in the independent claims. |
| jacog Mar 23, 2010 10:40 AM EDT |
The whole patent argument sounds lot like the old "Ship of Theseus" philosophical debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus |
| hkwint Mar 23, 2010 1:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Can such claims exist? AFAI understand: No. Wikipedia says: Quoting:Each dependent claim is, by law, more narrow than the independent claim upon which it depends. So basically a dependent claim specifies a subset of the independent claim. "A green car" is not a subset of "A red car", even better: The two sets do not intersect at all. I guess (I'm not very good at these math) that if two sets don't intersect, they should be considered independent. So if B (dependent) is a subset of A (independent), than if you don't infringe A you can never infringe B. Something like: "If I can proof I'm not in the Netherlands, I don't have to proof I'm not in 's Hertogenbosch". WP says there are dependent claims because: -The dependent claim serves as explanation about the independent claim, -The set (independent claim) might be ruled invalid because "the set is too large" but the subset (independent claim) might still be valid. -Claim differentiation, different claims should not specify the same set, but instead a larger or smaller set. You might read the WIPO-paper cited by Wikipedia because I feel the answer (the rule that says a dependent claim should be a subset of the independent claim) might be in it, but I'm not sure: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/classifications/ipc/en/... |
| dinotrac Mar 23, 2010 2:13 PM EDT |
By Jove, I think he's got it! |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 23, 2010 6:46 PM EDT |
Thanks all! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!