Invention Analysis and Claiming:
Claim Diversity and Enforced-Format Claiming -- Part II1
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 column is adapted from Ron's book, "Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer's Guide" (American Bar Association, 2d Ed. 2012) available atababooks.com. Ron also offers one- and two-day seminars--including in-house and one-on-one seminars--based on the teachings in his book. Details at www.sluskyseminars.com Ron can be reached at 212-246-4546 and firstname.lastname@example.org
A previous column (January 2009) discussed the desirability of providing a patent application with a measure of "claim diversity." This means claiming the invention in diverse ways—articulating the inventive departure differently, organizing the limitations differently, using different terminology or employing different combinations of functional and structural recitations. Building diversity into the overall claim suite is desirable because a particular defect that renders a claim too broad, too narrow ...