|
|
|
|
|
|
by 6ren
5361 days ago
|
|
|
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...) |
|
|
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.