From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2007 - 17:53:07 CST
> De : Doug Ewell [mailto:email@example.com]
> Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> > Are you sure that this (individual claims) is required? I've seen
> > comments about US patents where infringement is demonstrated only when
> > *all* claims are infringed. If you drop only only claim (for example
> > some details about the implementation technics), and replace it by
> > something else not covered in that patent, then it is not the same
> > product, and it is not patented.
> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that if that were the case, it would be
> rather counterproductive to list pages and pages of specific claims.
It may be necessary only because a single claim would cover prior art; those
claims together are defining precisely the invention by means of
restrictions, rather than by addition.
If you need to protect multiple features separately, you need to register
multiple patents, one for each invention in its own precise scope.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 17:55:52 CST