The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jan 28th, 2023, 5:28pm

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)
   Non-Positive Limitations
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Non-Positive Limitations  (Read 838 times)
BotchedExperiment
Newbie
*




   
Email

Posts: 34
Non-Positive Limitations
« on: Jul 8th, 2007, 5:00pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I'm just hoping to get a quick answer, so I don't have to wait until I get into the office tomorrow.  This should be easy for you patent pro's.
 
The most broad description of one element of an invention for which I'm drafting claims invovles the use of the word "non".  I know that cliams are supposed to only have positive limitations, but I'm stumped.
 
Example: A wall assembly comprising:
at least one board; and,
at least one elongate non-threaded fastener.
 
In the above example the non-threaded fastener could be a nail, staple, or rivet.  Of course, this example is easy because you could say ". . . a smooth elongate fastener. . ."
 
Is describing something by saying what it isn't allowed as long as stateing the negative limitation brings greater understanding to what the element IS?
 
Thanks.
« Last Edit: Jul 8th, 2007, 5:24pm by BotchedExperiment » IP Logged

Repeating experiments since 1998.
pentazole
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 197
Re: Non-Positive Limitations
« Reply #1 on: Jul 8th, 2007, 5:33pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

If what you're drafting is similar to the example you gave then it's fine.  Define what non-threaded means in the spec, and why it's favored over a screw, and add a Markush type dependent claim that recites what the non-threaded fastener can be.
IP Logged
BotchedExperiment
Newbie
*




   
Email

Posts: 34
Re: Non-Positive Limitations
« Reply #2 on: Jul 8th, 2007, 5:51pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 8th, 2007, 5:33pm, pentazole wrote:
If what you're drafting is similar to the example you gave then it's fine.  Define what non-threaded means in the spec, and why it's favored over a screw, and add a Markush type dependent claim that recites what the non-threaded fastener can be.

 
 
Thanks.  Of course, the problem is that what I'm working on is much more complex than my example.  
 
Essentially, the field knows two types of widgits for use in an assembly, and the inventor is disclosing a new class of widgets.  The new widgets can be of several types, and what they all have in common is that they are not of the two types of known widgets.
IP Logged

Repeating experiments since 1998.
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: Non-Positive Limitations
« Reply #3 on: Jul 10th, 2007, 3:43pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

For what it's worth, I think non-threaded would work.  
 
You might try to explore more affirmative ways to recite that:  "impact-driven fastener", or "linear impact-driven fastener".
 
You might also try to get nifty with functional or other qualitative language: "wherein the fastener is placed into a fastening position in the absense of a rotational force applied to the fastener."  Of course, you might be leaving out those nails that have a bit of a pronounced twist in them for extra grip or a clever designer-arounder that would devise a way to drive a simple nail with a rotational force of some sort (e.g., a large hydrolic press to simply push the nail into place with a twist).
 
I hope that helps.
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Pages: 1  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