What is the difference betwee 'Method' and 'Apparatus' in a patent claim area

The Apparatus claims cover the device itself: its component parts and their physical arrangement.

The Method claims cover the way in which the gadget operates, the process performed by the parts.

Regards, James Arthur (Disclaimer: IANAL)

Read at least a dozen different patents, pick those that "closely" relate to what you are doing. Note that there are two kinds of claims, independent and dependent. The first claim is the most important and is always an independent claim. Usually, but not always, the second claim is a dependent claim and will be worded like "...of claim 1" or such, some aspect being a little different than that described in claim one. Crafting claims is an art. You must describe the novel item so others "skilled in the art" can reproduce it. That does not mean that what they produce will work as well as what you invented, and/or that they *understand* or *believe* what you said. Also, if the device is completely novel (such as the transistor first patented in the US by Lillienfeld in the late 1920s), it is not required that a correct theory be described - a wild guess will do. And....even as a "small entity" it is expensive. If the claims are crafted properly, few if any will raise an objection (does not correctly fit the legal requirements) and a good patent lawyer can "argue" (ie: give good legal reasons) that the wording is OK as-is. Furthermore, the time in process will be "short" - less than 2 years. The claims should cover all possible aspects that can be legally covered; some claims being rather specific and others as general as possible, looking at the item upside-down, sideways, backwards, inside-out, and crazy-blue-sky if one can. If you invent the paper clip and describe only its holding capabilities, you lose the sales and profits of its use as a slingshot.

Hi Robert, Thank you for your excellent advice.

Here are you key points:

1. Read at least a dozen "closely" relate patents;
2. You must describe the novel items;
3. The claims should cover all possible aspects that can be legally covered.

I think this is inventor's responsibility: looking at the item upside-down, sideways, backwards, inside-out, and crazy-blue-sky if one can. The example of paper clip doesn't exist for eletronical circuits.

For eletronical circuit, the inventor must have to think a lot about any possible designs around patents that any lawyers couldn't do it. Block them or invent them together.

I don't understand the following statement: even as a "small entity" it is expensive.

Thank you.

Weng

The paper clip example was just an example and not intended to relate to chemical patents, boilogical patents, electronic patents or any specific type or class of patents. It was intended to only show that some un-thought-of aspect can be missed. Look at the charges; a "small entity" pays thousands of dollars - especially when one adds in the maintenance fees. Patents are as good and as bad as a copyright. All they do is give the holder incontestable proof that they are the owner, period. The size of the owner's wallet is more important when court action is deemed necessary. Only the rich win. See what Don Lancaster has to say about patents. Now you can do all of the research, write the the patent including well-crafted claime, and then post it on the web thereby putting it into the public domain. That means that any art derived from the patent is mostly PD itself, unless something "novel" is added - and only *that something* could be patented by that inventer. If your patent is something relatively fundamental (maser) then all new art based on that patent would theoretically be PD (if i understand the general drift of patent law correctly). I have written up a few patents and put them on the web. A hell of a lot cheaper and my wallet does not have to be invaded in defending poachers.

Hi Robert, I checked USPTO and found you hold 5 patents.

I like to listen to your advices, experiences and lessons all ears.

Several things for me to file patents are:

1. The circuits must be novel, and it will be applied in the industry without doubt.

For example, they must be dramatic advantages over current ones in one of following respects: speed, performance, saving power or saving logic.

1. The 'novel' circuit must have potential buyers to make money.

1. History will keep your invention as a record and the circuit can go into textbooks.

But basically, making money is the most important factor to file a patent.

Weng

Hi, I am following patent 6,914,453 by IBM to write claims.

I would like to ask another questi1. A method ... providing a clock input to the logic circuits; providing one or more static signal inputs to the logic circuit; From the above descriptions, I am confused about why claim 4 repeats a step that has already been described, but insead of using 'providing', it uses 'applying' this time.

Thank you.

Weng

Well, *dramatic* advantages are not really necessary; making the device more useable or practical is sufficient. Check my website oil4lessllc.com and look at the Mosley patent and then at the two i put into PD as an example. If one wants to be nasty, the item patented does not have to be practical, does not have to be buildable by ordinary means. Hell, i have seen numerous patents on things that were obvious to even those *not* skilled in the particular art (ie: legally speaking the patent should not have been awarded). And i have seen patents that were almost exact copies of one another (up to three!). One patent i saw was intriguing; it purported to be a patent on a plastic coated bike sprocket, but really was a chemical patent "hiding" in a different classification. Do your own patent search for background and interference (of idea); patent lawyers are very expensive and if the one chosen lacks a background in the field of art that your idea covers, then their search will not be as wide or deep as needed. The Patent Clearing house in Sunnyvale CA is the best in the nation - mainly because they have *all* of the cross reference material that is available. If and when you do go for a patent lawyer, make sure that they do have the relevant background (5 years or more). And have the whole patent written up; even format it the same way as required for submittal. Have those you trust go over wording of the claims, suggest added ones, check spelling, etc. If there is a term commonly used in similar patents but is not standard english, use the "patent-ese" not English. For example, in the pump patent, note the term "depending" is used, where English would use "descending".

If you look closely at claim #1, note the use of providing, generating, applying, precharging, evaluating, holding, and converting are all used (listed in order of occurrence). In #4, "applying" would appear to mean that an external signal is used (applied). In #1, "providing" appears to be a modifier of the action "step". I ain't no engrish hexpert, nor familiar with "patentese" related to logic circuits, so i could be very wrong in those assessments. Look at at least a dozen patents direcly related to the field of interest - and keep an eye out for similar or identical constructs like those you mentioned. That is how i discovered that "depending" was patentese for the engrish term "descending".

No, they don't have to show anything "dramatic" at all. A patent only has to show uniqueness and workability.

Making mony is irrelevant to a patent, though since one has to pay money to get a patent, it's a good idea.

History? Publication will prevent (in an honest world) someone else from patenting your idea. You'll still need a lawyer and a pile of money if someone else does patent your idea.

There are many reasons to file a patent. Making money is only one.

Hi Robert, Thank you for your good advice.

Weng