The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jan 31st, 2023, 11:08pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Patent Drafting/Interpretation
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Ricky
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Ricky  (Read 1563 times)
Isaac
Senior Member
****




   


Posts: 3472
Re: Ricky
« Reply #5 on: May 22nd, 2007, 12:52pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 22nd, 2007, 10:33am, patentboymanusa wrote:
"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.

 
Means for is used to attempt to specify a device using functional means.  The first claim does that while leaving the problem of establishing what types of things meet the limitation.
 
But specifying an "ability" to perform a function often does not specify a limitation at all.   A structure might have an "ability" to perform a function just by not acting counter to that function.  A twisted pair of wires routed from A to B has the ability to carry communications between A and B regardless of whether any communications devices are connected.
 
IP Logged

Isaac
TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 456
Re: Ricky
« Reply #6 on: May 22nd, 2007, 1:42pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Sometimes, if you are going from apparatus to method and you have "means for" included in the appratus claim, you can simply take out the "means for" and use the gerund for the method.  However, I am not sure this answers your question.
IP Logged
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: Ricky
« Reply #7 on: May 22nd, 2007, 6:36pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 22nd, 2007, 10:33am, patentboymanusa wrote:
"The method of claim 1, wherein the network includes the ability to communicate on a network.
 
Are there any problems with this?

Maybe.  The network includes the ability to communicate on [another?] network?  Are you referring to an uplink or gateway where a network becomes, in effect, a node of another network?
 
What I think you're trying to say is:
 
The method of Claim 1 wherein the network facilitates communication between two or more computers operatively coupled to the network.
 
That's closer to what I'd say to indicate that the network has the ability to carry out communication between attached computers which is what I thought you were getting at.
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board