m******t
发帖数: 1694 | 1 more specifically, if an Independent Claim is not anticipated, can I say
THEREFORE the subsequent dependent claims are not anticipated as well.
there is legal precedent to support such arguement to the USPTO, would such
argument stand in a response to the Chinese PTO?
thanks! | a**********m
发帖数: 2098 | 2 yes, you can. you don't have to cite any legal precedent. that's the most ba
sic patent law principle--once the independent claim has novelty, all depend
ent claims depending on it have novelty as well
such
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
: more specifically, if an Independent Claim is not anticipated, can I say
: THEREFORE the subsequent dependent claims are not anticipated as well.
: there is legal precedent to support such arguement to the USPTO, would such
: argument stand in a response to the Chinese PTO?
: thanks!
| m******t
发帖数: 1694 | 3 got it, thx!
ba
depend
【在 a**********m 的大作中提到】
: yes, you can. you don't have to cite any legal precedent. that's the most ba
: sic patent law principle--once the independent claim has novelty, all depend
: ent claims depending on it have novelty as well
:
: such
|
|
