05-P6 book-pp59-70_12_Layout 1 22/05/2018 09:43 Page 69
5. Now I have done ‘interpretation’, what comes next? Claim 3 seems non-contentious as the ends of the blade of Figure 2 look just like the ends of the blade of Figure 4. In claim 4 the ‘clear spaces’ may be a problem. However, in the patent there is no description at all of the spaces 4 in the blade of Figure 2. They are identified as ‘gaps 4’, but then only in an indirect way in a description of the operation of the saw. What must a space have (or not have) to be clear? Will any space that performs the function of the the gap 4 be a ‘clear space’? These are questions you will have to answer to determine whether the gaps 38 with raker teeth 37 are ‘clear spaces’. You might suggest that they are very definite spaces which are clearly visible, and so they are ‘clear’. You might equally suggest that they are ‘obstructed’ by the raker teeth, and so are not ‘clear’. The conclusion you reach will have an effect on whether the claim is infringed or not. So, the points that really need discussion relate to where the infringement differs from the described embodiment of the invention, and where the claims are poorly drafted. Are you surprised at how much there is to find and discuss in a short patent and a short set of claims?
Infringement and Validity • 2018
69
