Patent Claim Deep Analysis

Problem

Competing patent claims often mix legal transition terms, dependent claim chains, functional language, and numerical ranges, making it hard to judge the real technical boundary. When the input contains only claims without the specification or prosecution history, analysis can drift toward overgeneralization or over-specification. analyze-claims aims to convert these documents into traceable, reviewable structured analysis rather than a vague broad or narrow verdict.

How It Works

The skill works from claim text and specification evidence:
- Claim decomposition: quotes claims verbatim, splits preamble and technical features, and marks essential features, limiting terms, and specification support.
- Claim hierarchy: maps dependent claims to show cumulative limitations over independent claims.
- Scope interpretation: rewrites legal phrases such as “comprising,” “said,” and “configured for” into technical language, describing covered components, steps, and functions.
- Equivalence and prosecution history: applies the function-way-result test to potential equivalents and flags narrowing amendments that may affect estoppel.

Boundaries

Completeness of input matters. Without prosecution history, equivalence and scope-flexibility conclusions are downgraded. Without the specification, interpretation is only preliminary and literal. The output is a technical assessment; key conclusions still require patent counsel review.