Related Posts
Additional Posts in Patent Prosecution
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
Curveball, but I like to do background first, then claims, figures, rest of description. Background helps me figure out “the story” of the claimed invention
I am in the life science field. I usually work on the examples first to understand the invention (e.g. study the data and figure out which chemical compounds are the client's desire embodiments). I will also work on the drawings at the same time, as these drawings usually include the data, such as, graphs. I, then move on to draft the claims, and then use the claims as an outline for drafting the specification. Depends on the inventions and the clients, sometimes I work on the background last, but sometimes I have it drafted first, prior to the claims and examples. Bottom line is, I always draft the claims first and the specification follows.
I also do claims, drawings, spec. And specifically for the spec, I then outline it based on the drawings putting each numbered drawing element into the outline. I then copy and paste each claim into the respective part of the outline. Then it's just a matter of adding prose around the elements I've put into my outline. For me, this is much easier than starting with a blank page. Plus, I know each numbered element from the drawings is discussed in the spec and each claim element has support.
I’ve never seen any authority say anything but claims first. I do claims, figures, spec. In my opinion, if you aren’t doing claims and figures first there’s no way you’re going to have good support. Best case for doing claims after the spec means you are having to go back and redo work to add needed support which is going to kill your effective rate as you redo work.
I have a very systematic way of writing. Claims first, then drawings. Then I make an outline based on the figures (eg Fig. 1 includes a widget 102; widget 104 etc). From there I drop the claims into the appropriate place in the outline. I now know I have literal support for all claims and elements in the drawings. From there it’s just a matter of adding prose to connect everything and adding backup positions for what the claim language means and other things that we might want to claim.
I always start with the claims. After that, if its a mechanical or electrical case, I'll move on to the drawings and then the spec. If its a software or method based case I'll draft the spec first and then move on to the flowcharts.
That said, it always depends on what the client provides.
Claims and figures contemporaneously. I'm a visual person and having the figures helps me to put in context what is most important in the application.
Claims first for me.
Claims, figures, spec for me too
I prefer doing the figs/spec and then claims. Working through the spec helps me better understand the invention. I can always go back and quickly tweak the spec/figs to bolster claim support.