July 30, 2014

20

New Articles

Advertisement

July 25, 2014

Canonical Form of Patent Claims

Patent claims are in the form of a very curious compound run on sentence.  The canonical form of a claim set begins with an opening phrase “I/we claim:”, “In the claims:”, "What is claimed is:" or “It is claimed:”, for example.  This is followed by an enumerated list of compound, modified nouns.  Each such compound noun has a number, in sequence, identifying it as a single claim.  These compound, modified nouns are each in the form of a subparagraph or set of subparagraphs, generally with each subparagraph, except the final one, ending with a semicolon or less frequently a comma.  If there are two or more subparagraphs, the next to last paragraph ends with the conjunction “and” (after a semicolon ending that subparagraph). 

The final subparagraph (or the first one if there is only one) ends in a period.  Thus, one can think of a claims set as a list, with each entry on the list having a number and ending in a period, and the list being introduced by an opening phrase.  Structure claims such as apparatus, system, device, compound of matter and so on have claims that relate one noun to another in terms of physical connectivity, capabilities, aspects and functionality.  Method claims, also known as process claims, have claims that relate to actions and use the gerund forms of verbs as nouns, often modifying these nouns with adverbs.  Placement of commas to separate phrases can introduce clarity and improve the likelihood that a subparagraph can be parsed unambiguously.  Sometimes, introduction of a comma introduces ambiguity, especially when it is unclear as to where in the subparagraph an offset phrase connects.  There is a trade-off between repeating clauses and sub phrases explicitly versus implying them through grammatical structure.  A claim with too much repetition can seem redundant and clunky.  Paradoxically, such a claim may have been written with the intent of removing ambiguity but may wind up introducing ambiguity.  An elegantly written claim with little repetition can be very clear and unambiguous.  Or, such a claim might have a crucial sub phrase that could be interpreted as possibly modifying or affecting more than one parent phrase or clause.

As a thought-provoking exercise, what might the effects be of changing the claims format to allow writing claims in the form of sets of sentences?  Each sentence could stand on its own.  Each single claim could be one or more sentences, at the discretion of the writer.  Would claims then be clearer?  Would the writing of claims require less effort?  Such a drastic change in how claims are written would doubtless cause unanticipated problems.  Without the conventions of the canonical form, would litigation of patents increase as a result of increased ambiguity of the claims?  Meanwhile, until or unless the claims format is changed, we write claims in the canonical form.  This is the art of claiming.

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Emerging Legal News Headlines:

Multiple reports have confirmed that the U.S. Department of State’s global database for issuing travel documents recently crashed. While the system has been restored, it is operating at reduced...

Key points:

  • New benefit rate of $4.02 an hour (except for Hawaii)

  • Effective July 22, 2014

  • Updated Wage Determinations 

The U.S. Department of Labor...

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will soon begin a second phase of audits (Phase 2 Audits) of compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA...

Has the time come to license investors?

Regulators are often called upon to draw regulatory lines. In my experience as a former regulator (some would argue I never left, though it’s been almost 16 years), when called upon to...

Commerce Department Action on Solar Trade Case

From time to time the Energy and Environment Update will focus on legislative and regulatory developments facing a particular energy sector. 

For several years,...

Takeaway: In order to discover additional documents regarding privity, the patent owner does not have to prove privity, but does have to show evidence tending to show beyond speculation that there could have been privity between petitioner...

Takeaway: A party’s speculation that materials for which routine discovery is being sought “could” contain inconsistent information is not sufficient under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii).

In its Order,...

Business communications firm Greentarget has just released the results of interviews with 100 news reporters and editors in their 2014 Disrupting the Press Release ...

This past Wednesday, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to revise New Mexico’s State Rural Universal Service Fund...

Takeaway: A petition asserting obviousness grounds of unpatentability must articulate reasons with rational underpinnings to support the obviousness conclusion, including, where appropriate, how the prior art addressed a need or problem in...

Takeaway: A petition filed more than one year after the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement will bar institution of inter partes review, even if that complaint is dismissed, if the dismissal is “with prejudice....

Earlier this month, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) filed a notice of the status of negotiations among the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) participants relating to the ownership restructuring of...

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced a settlement with a partner at an investor relations firm who allegedly traded on inside information obtained through his representation of two companies. 

...

As reported by HealthcareInfoSecurity.com, a former hospital employee is facing criminal charges brought by federal prosecutors in Texas for alleged violations of the privacy and security requirements under the Health...

You know how sometimes you misplace things? Glasses, wallet, keys, cell phone, remote control . . . vials of smallpox.

Not joking. Smallpox. As in “[a] government scientist cleaning out a storage room last week at a lab on the...

Today, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued a ...

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a 16-count indictment for insider trading, finding the government adequately alleged each element of the offense.  

S...

For those companies that are seeking additional insured status, keep in mind that there have been major changes in how that insurance status is written. The Insurance Services Office, the drafter of many “...

In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a Motion to Submit Supplemental Information. Petitioner sought to submit paragraph 179 from a report of Patent Owner’s expert that...

The Security and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20 (IM/CF) on June 30 (SLB 20). SLB 20 provides guidance...

In cases challenging participation of food service workers other than the quintessential roles with which most diners are familiar (e.g., server/waiter, busboy, etc.) in tip sharing/pooling/splitting arrangements...

In a recent split decision, the Federal Circuit ordered the Eastern District of Texas to stay district court litigation pending a covered business method (CBM) review, reversing the district court’s...

As reported in the press, President Obama plans to issue an Executive Order authorizing the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“...

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Christopher M. Hall, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, patent agent
Patent Agent

Chris Hall counsels clients in preparing and prosecuting patents in the electrical, telecommunications, computer software, and mechanical arts. 

Specifically, Chris has handled patents for:

  • Semiconductor processing, fabrication and integrated circuitry,
  • Optics
  • Optoelectronics
  • Artificial intelligence
  • 3-D imaging and image generation
  • Fault tolerance
  • Robotics
408-341-3051