A patent drafting application includes a detailed description of the invention and set of patent claims to define the scope of the invention. The patent drafting document is evaluated and examined by the patent examiner for granting the patent for a technology. Patent drafting should be complete and abbreviated. Patent Drafting should include the details of the invention and explain the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and also give the description of mode of operation or principal. Patent draft or a patent application should be written in consultation with a patent expert who is a patent attorney or a lawyer who has a good knowledge of understanding technical aspect of technology. A technology to be patented may be a process, machine, manufacturing process or composition of matter which is related to improvement over prior art. The patent specification includes a background of the invention, subject of the invention, explanation of patent drawing, and summary of the invention. The patent draft should also comprehend the valuable uses either to human or industry.
” Patent draft or a patent application should be written in consultation with patent expert who is patent attorney or a lawyer who has a good knowledge of understanding technical aspects of an invention.”
Depending upon the invention and the inventor, there may be one or more patent drafts covering the technology portfolio. The most important aspect of any patent document are the patent claims. A very broad patent claim may not be granted and a very narrow patent claim will narrow down the scope of the granted patent. If the patent claims are considered irrelevant it may lead to its rejection.
Fully describe your invention
While you file a patent application it is always necessary to file an patent application that completely and clearly describes the invention so that others would be able to understand the invention. For new inventors it is sometimes difficult to understand the so called description requirement to patent ability. It is not an overstatement to say that the description of your invention must be complete that it could be copied by others who read your patent application or issued patent. If you file an application that does not describe the invention to the required level the application is defective and it cannot be fixed. The only way to fix an inadequate disclosure is to file a new application with an adequate disclosure, but that means you do not obtain benefit from the earlier filing of the inadequate patent application.
The crux of the description requirement, which is embodied in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), which states:
“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”
The enablement requirement requires the inventor to describe his or her invention in a manner that would allow others in the industry to make and use invention. The best mode requirement requires the inventor to disclose his or her preferred way of carrying out the invention at the time the patent application is filed. There is no requirement that the inventors preferred embodiment be updated as the patent application works its way through the PTO. The written description requirement serves to function. First, scope of the invention is defined at the time of original filing of application. Whatever is present at the time you file makes up that original disclosure and is entitled to that filing date. If you attempt to sneak something new in later that was not present at the time of the original filing that would be considered a written description violation. Second, the written description requirement acts as a logical limit on the scope of the invention you alleged to have. An extreme (and silly) example would be describing a wristwatch in a patent application and then in the claims attempting to gain rights to an H.G. Wells time machine