0

could I use below 2 independent claims in a patent?

  1. The apparatus comprise A, B, C:
  2. The apparatus might further comprise D, wherein whether D is needed or not depending on the function of the apparatus..

Is this claim 2 acceptable, pls teach me if you could. have a great day.

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Is there some reason you can't just write "2. The apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising D whereby [recite the benefit that adding D accomplishes]"? The whereby is optional but it indicates to the reader why one would want to add D. Commented Nov 12, 2024 at 14:43
  • Hi, @bhuff36, I hope you are well, the drawing include D, and furthermore, most of the product should be with D, but some occasion, D is not essential.----my purpose is to broad the protection, and I am OK with D but if possible, I'd like to remove D from independent claim 1, thanks. Commented Nov 13, 2024 at 8:56
  • If it works without D, and you feel you have a chance to clear the prior art without D, then by all means write the main independent claim without D. Commented Nov 13, 2024 at 11:03
  • Note that you didn't specify whether you are writing original claims or you are presenting amended claims. It may not be proper to newly present a claim without D if it was previously described as essential. Commented Nov 13, 2024 at 11:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

It is vague and the conditional is not needed and is confusing. “Might” is inherent in a dependent claim.

You do not need to define the benefit of D, just claim 1 further comprising D.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.