|
|
Author |
Topic: Ricky (Read 1565 times) |
|
Ricky Williams
Guest
|
Is there some hard and fast rule that you should not use "means for" in dependent method claims?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2584
|
 |
Re: Ricky
« Reply #1 on: May 8th, 2007, 6:17pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Yeah. "Means for" is structure. You can't mix structure and methods.
1. A method comprising:
getting a homework assignment;
performing the homework assignment; and
providing results of the performing of the homework assignment.
2. The method of Claim 1 further comprising:
means for writing.
How does the means fit in with the steps of the method? I don't know.
You could probably do this:
2. The method of Claim 1 wherein performing comprises:
using means for writing.
Although, I'd rather do this:
2. The method of Claim 1 wherein performing comprises writing.
Regards.
|
| « Last Edit: May 8th, 2007, 6:18pm by JimIvey » |
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
Posts: 456
|
|
Re: Ricky
« Reply #2 on: May 8th, 2007, 6:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The sixth paragraph is implicated with regard to steps only when the steps plus function without acts are present. Method or process claims may therefore be written as a step for performing a specified function without the recital of acts in support of the function. O.I. Corp. V. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 42 USPQ2d 1777, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Isaac
Senior Member
Posts: 3472
|
|
Re: Ricky
« Reply #3 on: May 9th, 2007, 6:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
Claims that describe a process performed with a novel/nonobvious apparatus may need to recite some of the structure of the apparatus. I suppose in such cases instance you could legitimately use "means for" in a method claim. As Jim suggests, means for is used to introduce a structural element described using functional language.
For US practice you should not use "means for" in any claim unless you intend to invoke 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph.
|
|
IP Logged |
Isaac
|
|
|
patentboymanusa
Guest
|
"means for" should not be used, however, I am sure you can change that language to "the ability to" for the method and cover what you would like.
Example:
The method of claim 1, wherein the network includes means for communicating on a network.
"The method of claim 1, wherein the network includes the ability to communicate on a network.
Are there any problems with this?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Remove