2. The method according to claim 1 or 4, wherein a includes a feature.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein a includes a0 and a 1 features.
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein d comprises a d feature.
5. The method according to claim 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, characterized in that b comprises a b feature.
6. The method according to claim 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, wherein c contains a c feature.
In this case, the phenomenon of "reverse reference" and "multiple cross reference" appears. According to the current examination standards, claims 2, 5 and 6 in the above claims are definitely not "concise". Now give a detailed description of the technical scheme of the above rights and see if there are these two defects.
(1) About the second claim. Option 2 refers to right 1 and right 4, and right 4 refers to right 1, which is located after right 2. By combining the technical features of Claim 1 and Claim 4 into Claim 2, two parallel alternatives contained in Claim 2 can be obtained: ① A (a)+B+C+D; ②A(a)+ B+ C+D(d). In terms of "clear" standards, both technical solutions are methods with clear protection scope, and there is no "unclear" problem; As far as the "concise" standard is concerned, these two schemes are not the same or essentially the same technical scheme, and there is no problem of not being "concise".
(2) Regarding the fifth claim. Option 5 refers to right 1, right 2, right 3 and right 4, and right 2 is a plurality of subordinate claims. Combining the technical features of these cited claims into Claim 5, six parallel alternatives contained in Claim 5 can be obtained:
①A+B(B)+C+D；
②A(A)+B(B)+C+D；
③A(A)+B(B)+C+D(D)；
④A(a:a0、A 1)+B(B)+C+D；
⑤A(a:a0、A 1)+B(B)+C+D(D)；
6. A+B+C+D.
As can be seen from the above, the six technical solutions are all methods in terms of "clear" standards, and the scope of protection is still clear, and there is no "unclear" problem; As far as the "concise" standard is concerned, these six alternatives do not belong to the same or substantially the same technical scheme, and there is no problem of not being "concise".
(3) Regarding the sixth claim. Option 6 refers to right 1, right 2, right 3, right 4 and right 5, among which right 2 and right 5 are multiple dependent claims. According to the above analysis, we can get 12 parallel alternatives contained in Claim 6, and these 12 technical solutions are not unclear or concise.
From the above analysis, we can clearly see that the latter citation and multiple cross-references did not lead to the defect that the technical scheme of the claim is not clear and concise enough. It seems acceptable that the above quotation appears in writing practice. At the same time, it is worth noting that the provisions of Article 22 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law on the citation mode of subordinate claims are not listed as the preliminary examination clause and the substantive examination rejection clause of the invention patent, let alone as the reason for invalidation, so it seems to have been promulgated. For legislators, its legislative intention may not mean that it must be cited in the above four ways.