When drafting claims it is permissible to use exemplary language (“for example” or “such as”). According to MPEP 2173.05(d) use of such language “does not by itself render the claim indefinite,” although the section then rattles off five examples where exemplary language was found to be indefinite. Even if exemplary language is permissible, is it a good idea?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Modern patents occasionally issue with claims containing exemplary language. Consider claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11972683:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n 14. The tracking arrangement as claimed in claim 13, wherein the \u201ccooperative awareness<\/span> message <CAM>\u201d has the following vehicle-specific, vehicle-characteristic<\/span> message parameters: type of different vehicles belonging to the road users, <\/span>for<\/span> example bus, automobile, motorcycle, etc.,<\/span><\/strong> in the group; time stamp of vehicles <\/span>belonging to the road users in the group should be close in terms of time;<\/span> position of different vehicles belonging to the road users in the group should<\/span> be adjacent; direction of vehicles belonging to the road users in the group<\/span> should be the same; speed of vehicles belonging to the road users in the group<\/span> should be comparable; length of different vehicles belonging to the road users<\/span> is used as a group identifying feature; width of different vehicles belonging<\/span> to the road users is used as a group identifying feature; issuing authority of<\/span> the cryptographic certificates for the signature of the status messages;<\/span> certificate hierarchy for validating the certificate for the signature of the<\/span> status messages; repetition rate of the change of the parameters.<\/span><\/p><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n What do the examples do for this claim? Does the absence of “trucks” is the list affect the meaning of “type of different vehicles”?<\/p>\n\n\n\n What about claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11965836:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 11. The detection assembly as claimed in claim 10, wherein the matrix array of light-emitting diodes is made of a longitudinal succession of strips of LED tape which are secured, for\u00a0example\u00a0glued<\/strong>, transversely to the inner surface.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Does “glued” affect the meaning of “secured”? There is a presumption that every word in a claim is to be given meaning, so what does “glued” for claim 11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there are claims structured like claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11965415:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 13. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the injected current comprises an alternating current signal having a frequency of 1 Hz or lower, for\u00a0example\u00a00.5 Hz or lower, or 0.25 Hz or lower<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Does the claim cover all frequencies below 1Hz? What is the significance of 0.5 Hz? Of 0.25 Hz?<\/p>\n\n\n\n While claims can include exemplary language, it may not result in exemplary claims.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When drafting claims it is permissible to use exemplary language (“for example” or “such as”). According to MPEP 2173.05(d) use of such language “does not by itself render the claim indefinite,” although the section then rattles off five examples where … Continue reading \n
\n
\n