4.14.1
Clarity objections

Once it has been established if a claim is directed to either one entity or to a combination of entities, the wording of the claim must be adapted appropriately to reflect it; otherwise the claim is objected to under Art. 84.

For example, in the case of a claim directed to a single entity, the first entity is "connectable" to the second entity; in the case of a claim directed to a combination of entities the first entity is "connected" to the second entity.

This is particularly the case where the claim not only defines the entity itself but also specifies its relationship to a second entity which is not part of the claimed entity (for example, a cylinder head for an engine, where the former is defined by features of its location in the latter). Before considering a restriction to the combination of the two entities, it should always be remembered that the applicant is normally entitled to independent protection of the first entity per se, even if it was initially defined by its relationship to the second entity. Since the first entity can often be produced and marketed independently of the second entity, it will usually be possible to obtain independent protection by wording the claims appropriately (for example, by substituting "connectable" for "connected"). If it is not possible to give a clear definition of the first entity per se, then the claim should be directed to a combination of the first and second entities (for example, "engine with a cylinder head" or "engine comprising a cylinder head").

Quick Navigation