The reason why this paper puts these three important and key parts together is not only because they are important and key to patent application documents, but also because many patent agents have some misunderstandings and misunderstandings in the writing of these three parts.
The most irresponsible way to write this is to write these three parts as one part, first write the patent right, then copy and paste, and the other two parts will become. Of course, this is understandable in some cases where the cost is less than 2000 and the purpose is to apply.
However, under slightly normal circumstances, the agent must know and be aware of the differences in functions and purposes of these three parts in the application documents.
The first is the claim. As can be seen from the literal meaning, the claim focuses on its right attribute, not its technical attribute. The function of the claim is to describe the technical contribution of the technical scheme by describing the method to solve the problem. Its purpose is to delimit the existing technology and its contribution, and the demarcation must be as clear as possible, otherwise it will lose the meaning of demarcation, that is, the meaning of the right attribute of the claim.
Secondly, it is the inventive content part of the specification. As the name implies, the so-called "invention content" refers to what this invention is. Because the essence of patent protection is a technical idea, not a specific product or process. So the essence of invention is to make clear what this technical idea is, that is, where did this invention come from? That is to say, what is the problem to be solved by the prior art? Where are you going? To what end? What do we do, that is, what technical means are used to achieve our goals. In a word, this part should be a logical summary and explanation of the technical scheme and technical conception to be protected by the claims. There is absolutely no need to be limited to the form of claims, as long as the logical main line of technical concepts is clearly stated and understood, the main purpose will be achieved.
Moreover, because of patent claims, inventions and specific implementation, these three parts are essentially the same thing, which may also be the beauty of redundancy in patent application documents that many people say. So many patent application documents are basically copied and pasted, and then the latter two parts are simply changed. But redundancy does not mean repetition. The real value of the beauty of redundancy should be the interpretation of the same thing from different angles and sides. For example, imperial edicts of Qing emperors were usually written in more than three languages, such as Manchu, Chinese and Mongolian, while today's official international documents are usually written in at least two languages, such as English and French. These redundant tasks are actually to ensure that people can know and understand the same fact from more angles and sides, and make the public's cognition closer to the truth.
Finally, let me talk about the specific implementation part of the specification. The main function of this part is to enable those skilled in the field to substantially describe the contents of the technical scheme of the invention. If the technical scheme can't be implemented, it can't be realized, or it can't be realized. The technical scheme required by the patent claim and the technical concepts described in the invention content part of the specification are just castles in the air. On the other hand, it shows that the technical scheme protected by the claim can not be supported by the specification, so the right attribute of the claim has lost its foundation. A necessary condition for the patent claim to be tenable is that the technical scheme protected by the patent claim can, at least in theory, be implemented in real scenes through concrete realization or examples. Even if there is no market, or the cost is too high, or the rate of return is too low, no one will actually use this technical solution under the current conditions, but as long as this technical solution is feasible in theory, it is enough. However, if the technical scheme cannot be realized even in theory, such as perpetual motion machine, such as turning the stone into gold, or because of the lack of necessary technical premise, it means that the specific implementation has not implemented the technical scheme required by the claims.
The patent application document is designed to explain the essence of the invention protected by the patent document from three different angles, different functions and different purposes, namely, the claim, the invention content and the specific implementation mode, mainly in order to enable the examiner and the public to compare these three parts with each other and understand and define the invention more clearly and accurately. However, if we follow the operation method of copying and pasting by some agents, regardless of the writing functions and purposes of these three parts, it will deviate from the original intention of designing patent application documents in this way, and also deviate from the beauty of redundancy of patent application documents mentioned by the industry.
The reason why I suddenly wrote these words is mainly because in practical work, I see that some agents or old agents are often only willing to tell novice agents what to do and how to do it. Instead of telling me why? They seem to prefer that the new person is a machine, doing what they are told, asking fewer questions and doing more work, but they don't think everyone wants to be a living, thoughtful and free-willed person and know what it is. In fact, only when the novice agent solves the problem to a certain extent in his mind can he better solve the problem of what to do and how to do it. On the other hand, if the novice agent only knows how to write the patent claim and what form each part of the specification is, but he doesn't know why, what is the function and purpose of each part? That's a high probability that they will stay at the level of writing the patent claim, the invention content and the specific implementation as a part, and only make some changes in form at most. Formally speaking, these three parts really seem to have just been rewritten, but without a deep understanding of their respective functions and purposes, writing will inevitably stay in the form, and it is impossible to understand the original intention of designing application documents in this way, let alone appreciate the beauty of redundancy.