By Ronald Slusky
Ronald Slusky mentored dozens of attorneys in “old school” invention analysis and claiming principles over a 31-year career at Bell Laboratories. He is now in private practice in New York City. This article is adapted from his book published by the American Bar Association, “Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer’s Guide,” available at all on-line bookstores and at www.claim-drafting.com. Ron can be reached at 212-246-4546 and rdslusky@verizon.net.
In a previous column2 I explained my preference for a “story-telling” type of Summary of the Invention. This style of Summary presents the invention in narrative form, thereby continuing the problem-solution story that was begun in the Background.
A Summary that effectively explains what the invention is goes a long way toward showing the would-be licensee that he is not being asked to pay something for nothing. Moreover, a patent whose Summary makes the invention clear is less likely to get into litigation because the Opposing Team3 is more likely to agree (at least among themselves) that their product implements the inventor’s teachings. They are also more li...
