Patent Claims Example: Independent and Dependent Claims Explained

An independent claim states a combination of features without relying on another claim. A dependent claim refers to another claim and adds a further limitation. Reading an example is easier when you can trace each feature back to the technical disclosure.

The example below uses an invented positioning clamp. It teaches structure and review, not the protection you should seek for a particular invention. No prior-art search or patentability assessment has been performed, and the English wording is not a filing template for every jurisdiction.

If you need to organize the technical facts first, use the invention disclosure template. For the complete product process, see the AI patent writing workflow.

Start with the disclosed mechanism

The synthetic disclosure describes a base, a fixed jaw and a movable jaw. A screw advances the movable jaw along a guide slot toward the fixed jaw. Opposing V-shaped grooves locate a cylindrical workpiece, and replaceable contact pads are provided at those locating surfaces.

There are no measurements of clamping force or accuracy. The disclosure does not specify pad material, groove angle or screw dimensions. Those gaps must remain visible during review.

Independent claim example

1. A workpiece-positioning clamp comprising a base having a guide slot; a fixed jaw mounted on the base; a movable jaw guided along the guide slot toward and away from the fixed jaw; and a screw arranged to advance the movable jaw toward the fixed jaw, wherein the fixed jaw and the movable jaw have opposing V-shaped locating grooves for receiving a cylindrical workpiece.

This sentence is deliberately limited to a small set of stated structures and relationships. It is not a finding that the combination is new or that these are the right essential features for an actual application.

Wording	What it does in this example	What a reviewer checks
“A workpiece-positioning clamp”	Identifies the technical object	Does the disclosure describe an apparatus of this kind?
“a base having a guide slot”	Introduces a part and one of its features	Where is the slot described or drawn?
“a fixed jaw” and “a movable jaw”	Introduces two different components	Are their names used consistently?
“guided along the guide slot”	States the movement relationship	Is the guidance and movement explained?
“a screw arranged to advance”	Connects the actuator to its intended action	Does the description explain the actual engagement?
“opposing V-shaped locating grooves”	Defines a relationship between surfaces	Is that geometry supported, and is it needed for the intended scope?

“Comprising” is used here to introduce the listed elements. The legal effect of transition wording and functional language depends on the applicable law and context; choosing a word alone does not establish useful protection.

Dependent claim example

2. The workpiece-positioning clamp of claim 1, wherein each of the opposing V-shaped locating grooves is provided with a replaceable contact pad.

Claim 2 retains the features of claim 1 and adds the replaceable pads. It does not replace the V-shaped grooves with a different locating structure. For this teaching example, the pads are placed in a dependent claim to demonstrate an added limitation; whether they belong in an independent claim requires analysis of the real invention and prior art.

Use the introduced names consistently. Switching between “movable jaw,” “sliding block” and “gripping unit” without explaining whether they are the same part can obscure the relationship. A drawing reference-number register helps keep the description and figures aligned, although numbers do not replace a clear technical definition.

Trace every feature to its source

Proposed feature	Disclosure support	Action
Screw-driven movable jaw	Stated operating sequence	Confirm the engagement details in the description
Opposing V-shaped grooves	Stated locating geometry	Check consistency in every view
Replaceable pads	Stated in the example	Ask how they are attached and removed
Pads made of a specific alloy	Not supplied	Do not silently add it
A specified improvement in holding force	No measurements supplied	Do not invent a result

For Chinese applications, Article 26 of the Patent Law provides the statutory context for clear and complete description and claims based on the description. The table is a practical review aid, not a substitute for applying that law to the actual case.

Review an AI-generated claim in four passes

1. Facts: mark added components, omitted relationships and invented values.
2. References: check introduced terms, claim dependencies and consistent names.
3. Support: locate the disclosure and description passage for each feature; record gaps.
4. Scope: review the proposed combination against verified prior art and the inventor's actual contribution with the appropriate professional.

If you find an unsupported feature, return to the source material. Ask whether it is an actual part of the invention and record the answer; do not assume that deleting or broadening wording always produces a valid claim.

Use the example to prepare your own drafting session

Complete the blank disclosure template, then choose a drafting jurisdiction. For the Chinese workflow, open the Chinese drafting workspace and review the generated claims against the confirmed disclosure. Use patent search to investigate relevant documents; a generated citation is not a verified reference.

How many claims should an application contain?

There is no useful fixed number for every invention. The technical subject matter, scope strategy and destination rules and fees all matter. These two claims demonstrate a dependency, not a recommended claim count.

Is making a claim longer always safer?

No. Added wording may clarify a relationship, introduce an unsupported feature or narrow the scope unnecessarily. Judge each limitation by its purpose and support.

Does a fluent AI claim mean the invention is patentable?

No. Language quality, disclosure support, novelty and inventive step are different questions. This page provides a reading and review method; it does not predict examination outcomes.