[TruthElixirX]

Can someone explain dependent and independent claims to me?

[tzs]

An independent claim stands alone. For example, if you had invented the bicycle, an independent claim might look something like this:

   1. A device for transportation consisting of two
   wheels joined by a frame on which one or more
   passengers sit.

A dependent claim depends on an another claim. Here's an example that depends on the above independent claim:

   2. The device of claim 1 where one of the wheels is in
   the front of the vehicle and one of the wheels is in the
   back of the vehicle.

Note how it starts with claim 1, and then further refines it.

Here's an example of a dependent claim depending on another dependent claim:

   3. The device of claim 2 where the front wheel is mounted
   in a turnable fork for steering the vehicle.

[nobody314159]

The important part being I could still have a patent on the steering even if the first 2 claims are denied.

It's very common in patents to only really have invented the last claim - all the previous claims are thrown out but the last one stands. It's partly an easy way of getting all your points across logically and partly a tactic of having some ground to give up in a legal battle

[6ren]

A "dependent claim" is one that is based on another claim (it is dependent on it). For example:

> 2. The unit of claim 1, wherein the input reflects a request to schedule maintenance.

An "independent claim" is one that doesn't. E.g.

> 1. A unit, comprising: a memory; a transmitter; and a processor, coupled to the memory and to the transmitter, [...] an input received from the user interface

It's a forest, the roots are independent claims (no parent), all the rest are dependent (have a parent). Um... I don't know if it's allowed for a claim to depend on more than one claim (i.e. have more than one parent; multiple inheritance), but I've never seen one. Cycles are right out.

(example are from the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...)

[monochromatic]

> I don't know if it's allowed for a claim to depend on more than one claim (i.e. have more than one parent; multiple inheritance)

Sort of, but probably not in the way you're thinking. You can write multiple dependent claims (although they are generally disfavored in the U.S. and cost extra in fees). But say you have something like this:

What is claimed is:

1. A chair comprising a seat and a plurality of legs.

2. The chair of claim 1, wherein said plurality of legs comprises four legs.

3. The chair of any preceding claim, wherein said seat is made of plastic.

So claim 3 is a multiple dependent claim, but the way it would be interpreted is basically as having the scope as if it were written as two separate claims: one depending from claim 1 (thus covering any chair with a plastic seat and some legs), and one depending from claim 2 (thus covering any chair with a plastic seat and four legs). So it's just a concise way of writing something that would logically expand into more than one claim, which isn't really the same thing as multiple inheritance in programming.

[podperson]

Multiple inheritance in programming being so well defined...

[0x12]

A dependent claim is like a #include for lawyers that don't like typing.