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 2007 book "Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer's Guide." Upcoming presentations of Ron's two-day seminar based on the book will be in Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. Ron also offers the seminar on-premises to law firms and in-house patent departments. See www.sluskyseminars.com Ron can be reached at 212-246-4546 and firstname.lastname@example.org.
How detailed should the Detailed Description be?
An effective rule of thumb is Be Detailed Where the Invention Lives. This means that aspects of the embodiment that relate most closely to the inventive concept should be described in the greatest detail. Conversely, aspects of the embodiments that are further removed from the inventive concept can be described in less detail.
Consider the invention of the chair, the assumed original embodiment of which is shown in FIG. 1. Based on the assumed prior art shown in FIG. 2, we may conclude that the inventive concept is the use...