|
|
Author |
Topic: First and second members (Read 1040 times) |
|
iploya
Newbie
Posts: 25
|
 |
First and second members
« on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 2:02pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I am struggling with claim terminology, that maybe someone here has some more good suggestions on. As presently recited, my claim is pretty solid. One potential weakness that was brought to my attention is that I now recite two cooperating body members: a "first body member" having certain limitations and a "second body member" having certain other limitations. It is clear from the drawings and spec that these parts are two different things. However, there is some risk, I suppose, that the terms will be construed with an implied equivalence to each other, in that the root is "body member," as though I am reciting "first and second" of the same thing.
In this case, there are no clear mechanical analogs. The first body member comprises a sleeve, but is not "is a sleeve," so I don't want to merely recite that this element is a sleeve. The second body member has one end slidably disposed within the sleeve of the first body member (e.g. for reciprocating motion).
Ideas?? Thanks.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 2nd, 2007, 2:03pm by iploya » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
MattB
Full Member
  
Posts: 127
|
|
Re: First and second members
« Reply #1 on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 2:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
So long as it is as clear as you make it out here, and you continually refer to them by 1st and 2nd, I think it is ok by 112.
I'm not too experienced in litigation. Any other thoughts?
|
|
IP Logged |
Matthew L. Bycer
Registered Patent Attorney
http://www.bycer.com
http://www.cvglaw.com
|
|
|
pentazole
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
|
Re: First and second members
« Reply #2 on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 2:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
can't you just call it first and second component, or first and second element, or plain old first and second member without the "body"? I don't see what the problem is with your language though...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
iploya
Newbie
Posts: 25
|
|
Re: First and second members
« Reply #3 on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 3:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the input. I agree the current terms are acceptable as I drafted them, but the collective opinion at our ofice is (in my own words) that we like to use terms that are more descriptive if such terms aren't unacceptably narrowing. So, for example, if something is clearly a sleeve, and if sleeve is as broad as I want the term to be, then it's desirable to call it a sleeve and not a member. Sometimes there is no word, so then I would use the term member.
Fortunately, I just stumbled onto term choices that seems apparent in hindsight: the bulk of this apparatus is a coupling; hence, I arrived at the terms coupling body and sleeve slidably disposed on the coupling body. Simple, elegant, and more descriptive than what I had before....
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
patent_type
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
|
Re: First and second members
« Reply #4 on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 4:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
". . . further comprising a second body member separate from the first body member . . ."
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print