> Patent insiders distinguish prophetic examples by verb tense: examples based on work that has actually been done are typically in the past tense, whereas prophetic examples must be in the present or future tense. Thus, when a patent describes a chemical reaction in which “230 milliliters of hydrogen is attained,” or treatment of a patient whose “pain is substantially alleviated,” or a diagnostic patch with micro-needles that “automatically draw small quantities of blood,” the present tense signals that the work needed to support these claims most likely had not been carried out at the time the application was filed.
Definitely never heard this rule. Every patent I’ve written has been in the present tense regardless of whether it was “prophetic” or not. That’s just how patents are written.
I don't know how chem/bio pros do it, but I was trained to never include "is" in detailed descriptions only in the claims. In the description we use "may be" instead.
Definitely never heard this rule. Every patent I’ve written has been in the present tense regardless of whether it was “prophetic” or not. That’s just how patents are written.