The first three claims are establishing the basis for claims 4 through 9. Likewise claims 11 through 17 depend on claim 10 and claims 19 through 24 depend on claim 18. Though they are written linearly, patents have a hierarchical structure.
What you appear to be doing is mistaking each claim for an independent claim of invention, which is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. When the claim says "the system according to claim x", it is growing more specific as to what is actually being claimed as the invention. With that in mind it is not surprising that the independent claims (1, 10, 18) would not be novel. You have to read as far as the tail end of each thread to understand what is actually being claimed as the invention.
I can't speak to the content of this patent when read correctly, but I suggest re-examining it with this in mind.
Thanks for the pointers. I have written a few patents. Well, I wrote the invention part and paid supposedly good patent attorneys to clean it up and write the claims and educate me on the process.
I "thought" my lawyers told me the first few claims (1-3?) have to stand on their own and the rest can build on the invention. Meaning, if the first few are not unique inventions, the whole thing fell apart. More info would be useful.
I wouldn't doubt your lawyers! They were probably right in a context that does not generalize exactly.
I am not a lawyer and speak from no authority but curiosity, so I could be completely wrong or misleadingly close to being right, but I think the main point is confirmed by this, from the "Claims" section of the first result for "how to read a patent" (http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtopat5.html): "Each dependent claim must be narrower than the claim upon which it depends." The full example is too long to quote, but I encourage you to read it.
The obvious problem with this is that it is an implicit convention in an otherwise very explicit kind of document. It's no wonder at all that it is not widely understood.
What you appear to be doing is mistaking each claim for an independent claim of invention, which is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. When the claim says "the system according to claim x", it is growing more specific as to what is actually being claimed as the invention. With that in mind it is not surprising that the independent claims (1, 10, 18) would not be novel. You have to read as far as the tail end of each thread to understand what is actually being claimed as the invention.
I can't speak to the content of this patent when read correctly, but I suggest re-examining it with this in mind.