First, circle the independent claims, which will illustrate here with parentheses, e.g., (1) means claim 1 is independent (it always is, BTW).

Second, use an arrow after a dependent claim to show what claim it is dependent from.

Third, use the PTO check mark and equal signs (from the file wrapper claim chart format) to indicate rejected or allowed claims. "=" means allowed, "./" (the closest can get to a check mark here) means rejected.

Fourth, draw the claim chart veritcally on the inside of the file wrapper (in the margin) – this way you get a road map of the claims during reviewing the case.

Miscellaneous notations might be added to remind you about the scope of the claims or other notes. e.g., "A" for apparatus, "M" for method, "o" for objected to, etc.

Example: A ten claim case with 3 independent claims might have a chart like this:

A (1) ./

2 -> 1 =

3 -> 1 ./

4 -> 3 =

M (5) =

6 -> 5 =

7 -> 6 =

A (8) ./

9 -> 8 o

10 -> 9 o

In day-to-day analysis of claims, people use the this type of claim tree as a way to visualize the analysis especially for complex claim structures.

For example, in an application with 100+ claims and an extended prosecution history (e.g., with many canceled, revised, and newly added claims), a visual depiction of the dependency structure of the claims (e.g. using a tree structure similar to Windows Explorer) can be invaluable. Some people take a further step of annotating the tree
structure to reflect the content of the claim and any references cited against the claim.

Another approach for making claim chart is a two-column table in every legitimate patent infringement analysis. In the left column are each and every limitation of the patented invention. In the right column is either a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether that limitation is present in the accused device or method. For example, an accused device and a claim chart are presented below:

Robert's validity chart is not only useful for 102 analyses, but also 103 analyses, particularly the combining references type. Consider

Claim 1

Reference 'A’

Reference ‘B’

A widget apparatus, comprising:

1) a frobosinator,

2) a pixilator, and

3) a green cogscreen

Widget apparatus:

Yes (col 1, line 10)

Yes (col 1, line 12)

No (but there is a blue cogscreen at col 7, line 10)

Widget subassembly

No.

No.

Yes (col 9, line 12)

This chart supports a rejection of claim 1 as obvious over ‘A’ in view of 'B’.

The most useful automating tool that I have found is the shareware program that takes a draft specification and produces reports of the numbered items referred to in the claims and produces reports with respect to the same. It saves time in producing a Sec. 112 check.
For the most part, I have found analysis of claims not to be terribly difficult to do with human eyeball, but can see massive problems in trying to do them automatically, making it a project unsuitable for automation, because the cost/benefit ratio seems unfavorable. On the other hand, while this is certainly true for novelty searches, where you compare the claims of your application with the teachings of the prior art, where you pretty much ignore the claims, it may not be so true for a validity search, where you compare the claims of many patents with the accused device.