|
|
Author |
Topic: Specifying sequence of steps (Read 1526 times) |
|
smgsmc
Full Member
Posts: 269
|
 |
Specifying sequence of steps
« on: Jul 14th, 2007, 10:53am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Hi. This is a topic that popped up in another thread. But I'm not sure of the conclusion.
For a method claim comprising a series of steps (a)__, (b)__, (c)___, my understanding is that simply writing such a claim does not specify that the sequence must be carried out in that order. There were suggestions for contorted phrasing to get around this if the sequence is critical. But could I be direct and make life simpler by writing:
A method for __ comprising the steps of (a)__, (b)__, (c)__wherein the steps are performed in the sequence listed.
Or for those who are fond of "said":
A method for __ comprising the following steps, said steps to be performed in the sequence listed: (a)__, (b)__, (c)___.
Thanks.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Bill Richards
Full Member
 
Posts: 758
|
|
Re: Specifying sequence of steps
« Reply #1 on: Jul 14th, 2007, 5:54pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I have used:
A method comprising the ordered steps of:
(a) . . .;
(b) . . .; and
(c) . . . .
Also, phrases like "subsequent to step (a)" and the like.
|
|
IP Logged |
William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
|
|
|
PA
Guest
|
|
Re: Specifying sequence of steps
« Reply #2 on: Jul 14th, 2007, 6:32pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Another option:
A method, comprising:
doing a
in response to doing a, doing b; and
in response to doing b, doing c...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Bill Richards
Full Member
Posts: 758
|
|
Re: Specifying sequence of steps
« Reply #3 on: Jul 15th, 2007, 10:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 14th, 2007, 6:32pm, PA wrote:| in response to doing a, doing b |
|
I'm curious as to what "in response" means in this context. To me, there's a stimulus-response relationship in that "doing a" somehow triggers or otherwise inititates "doing b". Might there be some confusion there? A litigator might have a field day with it.
|
|
IP Logged |
William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
|
|
|
PA
Guest
|
|
Re: Specifying sequence of steps
« Reply #4 on: Jul 15th, 2007, 1:50pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jul 15th, 2007, 10:20am, Bill Richards wrote:
I'm curious as to what "in response" means in this context. To me, there's a stimulus-response relationship in that "doing a" somehow triggers or otherwise inititates "doing b". Might there be some confusion there? A litigator might have a field day with it.
|
|
I probably should have clarified that "in response to" was only an example. My intention was to suggest that you could indicate ordered steps within the steps themselves, as opposed to the preamble or in a wherein clause.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print