Strict Antecedent Basis: Introduction

Created: Oct 25, 2016; Modified: Oct 29, 2016.

Introduction

“It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter.”

MPEP 2173; see 35 U.S.C § 112(b). Unfortunately, the English language is too flexible and too complicated for many people to write a clear claim.

Strict Antecedent Basis is a standard that eliminates many ambiguities. Strict Antecedent Basis rules are tailored to draft claims that clearly meet the standards of the USPTO and US law. A claim may still be valid and clear without adhering to Strict Antecedent Basis.

Definite claims do not mean narrow claims, and indefinite or ambiguous claims do not mean broad claims. A good patent practitioner drafts claims that are both definite and broad.

A court can just as easily construe an ambiguous term narrowly instead of broadly. I would prefer to stand confidently in court knowing that an infringer is clearly infringing my patent rather than hoping that I fall ass-backwards into good fortune with a court that construes my claims broadly enough for me stop, or collect a royalty from, the infringer. Furthermore, requiring a court to construe ambiguous claims can increase the cost of litigation or worse – invalidate my patent.

Posts

The following posts define the Strict Antecedent Basis rules and provide numerous examples. I will update posts and add new posts over time.

• Strict Antecedent Basis: Introduction
• Strict Antecedent Basis: Noun Phrases
• Strict Antecedent Basis: Blocks and Scope
• Strict Antecedent Basis: Sets and Iteration