Samples
Prior-art search report samples,
claim chart included. All real.
None is a mock-up. Each is a real search on a closed public record, stamped as a sample.
You should be able to judge the form of the work before paying for it, which is harder than it sounds in a field where the deliverable is confidential by default.
Free · generated per patent
Prior art of record
Every reference the Patent Office already had for a patent — the ones cited during prosecution, plus the foreign family equivalents of those references, which do not appear on the face of the patent. The sample is US 10,217,523: 125 cited references expanding to 703 documents, of which the examiner's own search contributed five.
- — How much of the art of record the examiner found, rather than the applicant
- — Every cited reference, expanded to its DOCDB family
- — What that means for §325(d) — art substantially the same as what the Office considered
Free on any patent: run References of record on the Free tools page (examinersearch.com/tools).
$99 · automated, unsigned
Preliminary search — a find
A real $99 patent sweep on a closed public record (US 11,563,655, claim 1), stamped as a sample. The search found the closest reference and read it in full: three of four elements disclosed, the fourth shown as a near-miss with the reason. The search record follows. Where each passage sits in each reference is the claim chart, which comes with a signed search.
- — The bottom line in one sentence, and the strongest reference and what it lacks
- — Coverage matrix: explicit, inherent, near-miss, or nothing — per reference, per element
- — Every database and hit count, the classifications searched and how hard each element was worked
- — The examiner's own search, the references of record and the patent's own words
Back within 24 hours; credited in full against a Case Brief or a signed search on the same patent within 60 days.
$99 · the honest thin result
Preliminary search — a thin result
The same sweep on a claim whose art did not turn up (US 7,373,531, claim 2): two of four elements, two open. A thin result says thin — what was searched, what was not found, and what would complete it — rather than padding the list.
- — What the claim requires, in plain words, checked against the claim text
- — The residual: which elements no reference reached, and what a next search would need
- — The lane ledger: every source searched, and how hard
The report you get when the art is not there — which is the one that saves the cost of a full search.
The deliverable
Invalidity search report
A real search worked to completion on US 11,563,655, claim 1 — the same claim as the $99 sample above, so the two tiers can be compared directly. Marked as a sample and not signed. It shows the form and the depth: what was searched, what was found, where each limitation is met, and where it is not.
- — Every limitation charted in full, split into its components, each shown by a verbatim quotation with its location and a plain-terms note
- — The prosecution record: why the claim was allowed, and what the examiner did not search
- — Every source searched and the date cutoff applied, and the weakest points stated plainly
Fixed, quoted before any work starts. Five business days focused, ten full.
$199 · facts only
Case Brief
The public record behind a live patent campaign — BenedorTSE's three patents and its eight cases — gathered and checked, stamped as a sample. Why the patents were allowed, the art already of record or raised, the plaintiff's reading of the claims, and every ruling and motion across the family, with every source cited.
- — Why it was allowed: the prosecution timeline, the reasons for allowance verbatim, and the priority the examiner granted
- — The exclusion list: every reference already of record or raised in the family, and who raised it
- — The asserted claims by defendant, the claim the plaintiff charted, and each accused party's stated reading
- — Every case, counsel of record, pending motion and ruling, PTAB status and the dates that matter
Two business days. States facts and the record's own words; no opinion on validity or the merits.
Claim chart example
Three rows from the report above, as delivered.
Claim 1 of US 11,563,655, charted against US 9,893,983 and the FlowVisor papers. The left column is the claim’s own words, unparaphrased. Each quotation carries its location, the words of the claim it shows, a plain-terms note, and — where it falls short — a note that says so.
| Limitation (verbatim) | Shows | Quotation, location and notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1.a a statistics virtualization module configured to | a statistics virtualization module | US 9,893,983 B2 · col. 1 “Embodiments described herein provide a system that includes (1) a set of tools to define a set of one or more logical forwarding elements from a number of physical forwarding elements and (2) a scalable framework to retrieve statistics relating each logical forwarding element.” In plain terms A framework that turns the physical switches’ statistics into statistics of each logical (virtual) switch: a statistics virtualization module, under another name. Note ’983 does not use the words “statistics virtualization module”. The note says so rather than letting the quotation imply it. |
| 1.c determine whether the at least one physical resource is shared between the first virtual network and at least one other of the multiple separately managed virtual networks, and | determine whether · is shared | FlowVisor technical report (2009) · p. 4 “FlowVisor can decide which flowspace contains it, and therefore which slice (or slices) it belongs to.” In plain terms For any traffic, FlowVisor decides which slice it belongs to, and recognises that it may belong to more than one slice. Note The weakest element. No document found states a test of whether a physical resource is shared between two virtual networks; FlowVisor tests membership of a switch, port or flow in a slice. The report states this gap in its own section. |
| 1.d isolatedly provide individual physical resource consumption statistics to the first virtual network based on the determination whether the at least one physical resource is shared; | isolatedly provide · to the first virtual network | FlowVisor technical report (2009) · p. 8 “the FlowVisor has to edit the message per slice to remove statistics for ports that do not appear in a slices virtual topology.” In plain terms FlowVisor edits the switch’s port-statistics reply separately for each slice, removing ports that are not in that slice. Note It does not apportion a shared counter among slices. No document found makes the statistics provided depend on whether the resource is also used by another virtual network. |
- The claim’s words, not a paraphrase
- Paraphrasing a limitation is how a reference that almost reads on the claim gets charted as if it did. The left column is copied from the patent.
- A pinpoint you can check
- Paragraph, column and line, page, or figure element — never a citation to the reference as a whole or to its abstract. Each quotation is verified against the document before it is delivered.
- The weak point is stated
- Two of the three rows here carry a note on what the quotation does not show. That is what tells you where the §103 gap is, what a second reference has to supply, and whether the matter is worth the next dollar.
The full chart, the search record and the analysis are in the 17-page sample report. What each section of a report is for: what a prior-art search report contains.
Next
Your first search is free.
The free tools read the record on any patent and tell you whether a signed search is worth commissioning before you commission one.