|
|
Author |
Topic: couple is broader than connect ? (Read 611 times) |
|
manky
Guest
|
Hi, from Japan
May major is an electrical engineering.
I usually use "connect" in claim.
For example, a transistor is connected to a diode.
My boss instructs me to use "couple" instead of "connect" to broden claim.
He says that the above claim cannot covers a product that has a resister interposed between the transisitor and the diode, because "connect" means direct conenctrion.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
still_studying
Guest
|
 |
Re: couple is broader than connect ?
« Reply #1 on: May 29th, 2007, 9:22am » |
 Quote  Modify
 Remove
|
My understanding is that your manager is correct.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2584
|
|
Re: couple is broader than connect ?
« Reply #2 on: May 29th, 2007, 1:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree. I think "coupled" (especially "operatively coupled") means that the two elements are able to interact with one another through some direct or indirect connection. I'm not sure "connected" necessarily means "directly connected", but some seem to interpret "connected" that way.
When you get into software, "connected" means something different. To me, it means that there is some sort of intercommunication between two or more software modules. Think of what it means to be "connected" to the Internet. I don't know anyone who says they're "coupled" to the Internet. I think it helps that physical connection between software modules doesn't make sense -- so the "direct connection" connotation seems less reasonable.
Regards.
|
|
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
Isaac
Senior Member
Posts: 3472
|
|
Re: couple is broader than connect ?
« Reply #3 on: May 29th, 2007, 4:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think the context for the word "connect" influences its meaning quite a bit. The scope depends a bit on what element is connected to what other element and also on what the specification might describe.
For example, if signal voltage Vsig is "connected" to a high impedance amplifier, is the signal less connected to the amplifier because it passess through a relatively small series resistance between the two that won't at**** the voltage? How about if the signal passes through a 1 inch circuit board trace? a 1 inch integrated circuit conductor? or a 2000 ft of speaker wire? a switching transistor in the on state? What if a little attenuation is not critical; In each case, is Vsig then connected to the amplifier or is it only coupled? Is our answer different if we discuss instead a current signal Isig connected to an amplifier?
Further, what if the spec said that transistor P is connected to diode D, and that the connection of transistor to diode could be accomplished by using one or more low Z components such as a jumper, pc trace or resistor having an effectively low resistance, or by common connection at a single node. Is connected broader than we thought or does connect have such an unambigous meaning that the spec should not be consulted? If so, what if there is a dependent claim indication an indirect connection via one or more components? Will claim differentiation preserve the intended scope?
I'll agree that coupled is "generally" broader than connect when describing a circuit in detail, and perhaps "in electrical communication" which I've also seen is also a possible generally broader substitute for connected. But sometimes connected means somewhat more the just result of direct contact.
|
| « Last Edit: May 30th, 2007, 7:26am by Isaac » |
IP Logged |
Isaac
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print