> An example might help. Imagine a simple application with these three claims:
> 1. A method of transportation
> 2. The method of transportation in claim 1, wherein there is an engine connected to wheels
> 3. The method of transportation in claim 2, wherein the engine runs on water
> Notice that claim 2 mentions claim 1, and narrows it... in other words, it claims a strict subset of things from claim 1.
> Now, suppose you invented the water-powered car. When you submit your patent, you might submit it this way even knowing that there’s prior art for “methods of transportation” and you can’t really claim all of them as your invention. The theory is that (a) hey, you might get lucky! and (b) even if you don’t get lucky and the first claim is rejected, the narrower claims will still stand.
I'm pretty sure this is not accurate. To my knowledge, the claims of a patent are considered only as a whole, not individually, so there should be no fear that this is somehow trying to patent "methods of transportation" broadly.
To make a broad patent claim, you can't have any narrowing claims on the same patent. Put another way, the maximum scope of claim by a particular patent is defined by the narrowest claim in the list.
Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain that you're wrong. There are 2 types of claims, dependent and independent. dependent are those that refer to a previous claim and expand on it, (2 and 3 above). Claim 1 above is independent. The dependent claims are taken together with those they reference, but the independent claims if accepted are taken independently.
> 1. A method of transportation
> 2. The method of transportation in claim 1, wherein there is an engine connected to wheels
> 3. The method of transportation in claim 2, wherein the engine runs on water
> Notice that claim 2 mentions claim 1, and narrows it... in other words, it claims a strict subset of things from claim 1.
> Now, suppose you invented the water-powered car. When you submit your patent, you might submit it this way even knowing that there’s prior art for “methods of transportation” and you can’t really claim all of them as your invention. The theory is that (a) hey, you might get lucky! and (b) even if you don’t get lucky and the first claim is rejected, the narrower claims will still stand.
I'm pretty sure this is not accurate. To my knowledge, the claims of a patent are considered only as a whole, not individually, so there should be no fear that this is somehow trying to patent "methods of transportation" broadly.
To make a broad patent claim, you can't have any narrowing claims on the same patent. Put another way, the maximum scope of claim by a particular patent is defined by the narrowest claim in the list.
Lawyers--correct me if I'm wrong.