Sometimes, it makes sense to have even multiple independent training method claims. Receiving an input training dataset comprising and An example: A computer-implemented method of training a machine-learning model for, in particular the machine-learning model of claim, comprising: Broadening by generalization: Find umbrella terms for a group of steps, and break down the group in the dependent claims.Ĭlaiming the training of the machine-learning modelĪnd as I said, don’t forget the training method.Put the omitted steps in the dependent claims.
The ones which are needed to solve a technical problem.
Broadening by omission: Leave out certain method steps and focus your independent claim only on the critical ones. The basic idea is to just list out the steps of the algorithm.įor the sake of claim scope, use the two ways of broadening your claim: If the invention is concerned with the dynamic behavior of the software, the most natural claim category is a method claim. In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm (/ˈælɡərɪðəm/) is a finite sequence of well-defined instructions, typically used to solve a class of specific problems or to perform a computation. But how does an algorithmic invention fit into this structure? The typical claim set covers the product and the manuacturing method. Many companies I work with are experts when it comes to patenting inventions in their domain, typically in a classic field of technology. But what if the invention involves an algorithm?
0 kommentar(er)
