There’s no (or
shouldn’t be any) inflexible rule for drafting claims, for example
-> all inventive features should come or characterized or comprised in Claim
1 only as independent or not, & the followed subsequent claims shalt be (in)dependent
or derivatives of the first etc.
The Claims (use, method, process/product, composition) shalt define the scope of the invention (whether as independent or dependent) what’s cited in specification. No more, no less! Subject to, they shalt not be loosely connected. By merely discerning Claim 1, one shouldn’t deduce the inventive feature of the Invention, otherwise, what’s the point of drafting claims after such lengthy specifications? Verbose friendly system?
The patented inventive features are not utility/design claim wherein only single claim is typically mentioned. Hence should be discerned as whole, following supra guidelines.Further, S. 10(4)
& (5) too says that the claim shalt relate to a single invention
feature to form an inventive step, which should be clear & succinct.
These unnecessarily drafting
technicalities, despite all claims bonded together ((in)dependent),
should be circumvented!
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment