What principle is required for petitioners in a derivation proceeding regarding the claim terms?

In a derivation proceeding, petitioners are indeed required to provide definitions for all claim terms. This requirement stems from the need for clarity and specificity in understanding how the claims may be derived from earlier works. By defining each claim term, the petitioner ensures that the scope and meaning of the claims are comprehensively explained, allowing the proceeding to focus accurately on the relevant aspects of the claims in question.

This comprehensive approach is essential because derivation proceedings are often contentious and hinge on the nuances of terminology. Providing definitions for every term in the claims helps to avoid ambiguity, making it clear how the claimed invention is distinct from what may have been previously disclosed. This contributes to a structured assessment of whether the claims were derived from another inventor’s work or represent a novel innovation.

In comparison, other options do not reflect the thoroughness required in such proceedings. Defining only significant claim terms or making definitions optional could lead to misunderstandings and inaccuracies in assessing the claims, which could adversely affect the proceedings. Similarly, the idea that only terms must be defined in the specification overlooks the procedural rigor expected in derivation cases. Thus, providing definitions for all claim terms is fundamental to a successful petition.