Prior Art Analysis
Analyze independent patent claims against prior art using the full 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness) framework, including Graham v. John Deere factors and KSR rationales.
This skill benefits from web search to find relevant prior art references.
Instructions
- Read the instruction file at
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/prompt.md - Ask the user for the required inputs if not already provided via
$ARGUMENTS:
- Patent claims (independent claims to analyze)
- Known prior art (optional)
- Web search results (optional, or use web search tool if available) - Fill in the
{{PLACEHOLDER}}values with the user's content - If web search is available, search for relevant prior art references
- Execute the prompt to perform the analysis
- Present the output to the user
Inputs
| Placeholder | What to put here |
|---|---|
{{INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS}} |
The independent claims to analyze. Include full claim text with claim numbers. Only independent claims — do not include dependent claims. |
{{WEB_SEARCH_RESULTS}} |
Results from web searches for prior art (e.g., Google Patents, USPTO, Google Scholar, Espacenet). If your LLM has built-in web search, you can leave this placeholder empty and instruct the model to search. |
Attribution
Adapted from arcprime-ip/patent-prompts (MIT License) by ArcPrime — <https://github.com/arcprime-ip/patent-prompts>.
Original prompt text is reproduced with the license notice retained. Modifications: repackaged into a
standalone skill with references/prompt.md, bilingual description, and SkillHub metadata.
> This skill produces an analytical aid, not legal advice. Always have a qualified patent
> professional review any output before relying on it.
Scope
Written for US patent practice — USPTO filing and prosecution, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101/102/103/112,
Alice/Mayo eligibility, Graham/KSR obviousness. For CNIPA or EPO practice, the statutory
frameworks differ and the analysis must be adapted.
