Posts Tagged: "Patent Drafting"

One big mistake inventors make is they will go on page after page in their draft patent application about how they came up with the idea for the invention, what the market for the invention is and how they plan on tapping into that market. None of that is appropriate for a patent application. Various pieces, perhaps even all of it, would be appropriate for a business plan. So the first thing inventors need to understand and really internally appreciate is that a patent is NOT a business plan. If you are going to attempt to raise money to pursue your business objectives you will undoubtedly need a business plan and attaching a well drafted and previously filed patent application as an appendix can be useful at times, but a business plan and a patent application play very different roles.

First, every patent claim needs a preamble, which is the introductory phrase in a claim… Second, every patent claim needs a transition. The most common transitions are: “comprising” and “consisting of” … Third, the first time you introduce a limitation you MUST introduce it with either “a” or “an”, as is grammatically appropriate… Below in an example of an independent claim that applies the above stated three simple rules, which is taken from U.S. Patent No. 6,009,555, titled Multiple component headgear system.

The art of patent claim drafting is an undeniably difficult art to master. It is, however, essential for those in the patent space to both appreciate, understand and master. Before we put the cart before the horse let’s take a step back. Given the importance of patent claims it is not unreasonable to want to start there, electing to jump right into the deep end. That would be a mistake. That is not how patent attorneys do it, and if you want to succeed that shouldn’t be your approach either. Before you ever think about writing patent claims there are several very basic questions must be answered first.

In fact, many times the patentably relevant information is not described as well as largely irrelevant information about marketing strategies and likely consumer demand. Discussion of what makes an improvement better, stronger and faster should take precedent and inventors should consider adding more of this type of information than they are generally accustomed to doing. Keep the puffing for the sales department, the market and consumer demand for your business plan and spend your time in a patent application describing what makes your invention unique from both a structural and functional standpoint.

One big problem independent inventors face when they choose to represent themselves is with respect to the very real problem of admissions. Truthfully, those who are representing themselves should be given patent-style Miranda warnings before they file a patent application or say anything during the prosecution of a pending patent application… Another problem is with respect to not wanting their patent applications to be “too specific” and, therefore, keeping everything very general. If you are afraid to be specific in a patent application you really shouldn’t be seeking a patent in the first place.

Method or process claims are relatively easy to write once you know what the core invention is and what is necessary to be included in the claim in order to overcome the prior art. Method or process claims will include active steps to achieve a certain result. In method claims the transition is typically either “comprising” or “comprising the steps of.” While legally there may be some distinction between these two different transitions, both are acceptable. It is also important to understand that each of the steps in a method or process claims use gerunds, which are a form of a verb that ends in “ing” and operates to direct the action that is to take place.

The examination you receive from the patent examiner is never going to be any better than the patent claims you provide. If you provide preposterously broad patent claims and then add very few and perhaps common features to that preposterously broad claim in your dependent claims you are making it easy for the patent examiner to reject the preposterously broad claim and then also reject your barely narrowing dependent claims. Worse, you are left with absolutely no useful information about what the patent examiner thinks might be patentable. You are not in a meaningful position to know what prior art exists that the examiner will later throw at you, and you hardly have any useful basis to talk to the patent examiner.

Many inventors boast that they did not understand their patent application because their attorney used “legalese.” Some even joke that it was so dense that they did not even know if their invention was in there. Make no mistake about it: a good patent is easy to read. Patents are business documents that are read and understood by real people, not attorneys. When the patent is litigated, the patent is read by a judge and jury, who are common, ordinary people. If a normal person cannot understand the patent, neither can they.

Dear Patent Attorney, Please stop filing extremely short, overly broad patent claims. I recently conducted a study to measure the effectiveness of various prosecution strategies. The study covered over a hundred thousand patent assets pursued by software companies, and for this sample, I found that filing extremely short, overly broad patent claims is a bad strategy in just about every way imaginable.

The PathWays system is designed to help applicants predict which art units an application is likely to be filed before the application is even filed. A unique semantic search algorithm compares user submitted text to weighted key words derived from an exhaustive collection of application documents clustered in each USPTO art unit.

Being your own lexicographer means is that you who can define your invention using whatever terms you choose, and after attributing pretty much whatever meaning you want to give to the terms you use. Indeed you get to define the terms you use so long as any special meaning you assign to any particular term is clearly set forth in the specification. It is true that the ordinary plain meaning of the terms as would be understood by one of skill in the relevant technology field will be applied if you do not provide your own definitions, but leaving nothing to chance is generally a good idea. It is an absolute prerequisite if you are using a term that has multiple possible meanings, or if you are referring only to a certain subset of what the term generally means or could mean.

Patent attorneys darn near need to be magicians when it comes to language, which is the primary tool of our craft. Picking the right word and the right way to say things is critical. Even more critical, perhaps, is not saying the wrong thing, or worse yet saying something that is clear but not what you intended. Today I thought…

The use of relative terminology, which are short-hand terms that express a certain similarity, are quite common in every day conversation, but are not always appropriate for patent applications, or more specifically for patent claims. This is true because patent claims must particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter invented. Therefore, the use of relative terminology in patent claims should be carefully considered. Traps do await the unwary.

One of the biggest mistakes I see inventors make is they spend too much time talking about what the invention does and very little time explaining what the invention is and how it operates to deliver the functionality being described. Many inventors also make the mistake of only very generally describing their invention. If that is you then you are already light on specifics, which is extremely dangerous in and of itself. But the other problem I want to discuss is the flip side of the coin. It is important to be specific, but not just specific.

In short, a concise description of an invention is an inadequate description of an invention, period. The goal has to be to provide a full, clear, exact description of the invention in a way that particularly points out and distinctly identifies what the inventor believes he or she has invented and wants protection to cover. Even knowing what the legal standard is for the description that must be present in a patent application does not ensure that those without training will be able to satisfy the requirement. The blame for this goes to the way most people describe things as they engage in ordinary, everyday communications.