|
|
Author |
Topic: M+F v. Noun (Read 1155 times) |
|
Bill Richards
Full Member
 
Posts: 758
|
I have a set screw that can be used to align an element in a mechanical device. In addition to using a set screw, other types of mechanisms (e.g., ratchet, spring-loaded device) may be employed. What are the pros and cons of using "alignment means" versus "aligner"? The disclosure includes several examples. My thought is that with the M+F, I'd be limited to those examples and equivalents thereof. With the "aligner" noun, would I be limited just to the examples?
|
|
 IP Logged |
William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
|
|
|
TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
Posts: 456
|
 |
Re: M+F v. Noun
« Reply #1 on: Oct 7th, 2007, 8:51am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Sidenote: Do you generally use "******** means" or "means for ********?" I guess my question relates to paragraph 6. Must you say "means for" or is it ok to just use means?
Regards,
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Bill Guess
Junior Member
pro se .....all the way
Posts: 64
|
|
Re: M+F v. Noun
« Reply #2 on: Oct 17th, 2007, 12:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Do you generally use "******** means" or "means for ********?" I guess my question relates to paragraph 6. Must you say "means for" or is it ok to just use means?
I would always use "means for ********x". With this form, a gerund will (or at least should) be used.
Take for example poor ole Shelley Cole 
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95 -1505.html
Mrs. Cole's patent U.S. 4,743,239 teaches a disposable training brief whereby the brief goes on feet first but may be removed by ripping perforations along a lateral seam in case of an accident. Pretty clever.
Not so clever was the claim. In which "perforation means" appears. It's not a means for perforating is it?
The statute states that no structure may appear within a means plus function claim element.
Here's the fifth element of 4,743,239 - Claim 1.
"perforation means extending from the leg band means to the waist band means through the outer impermeable layer means for tearing the outer impermeable layer means for removing the training brief in case of an accident by the user."
Don't use that word "means" unless you mean it. The above drafter seemed to have been carried away.
Bill
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2007, 12:18pm by Bill Guess » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Bill Guess
Junior Member
pro se .....all the way
Posts: 64
|
|
Re: M+F v. Noun
« Reply #3 on: Oct 17th, 2007, 7:37pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Means plus function with no structure in the specification
another oops.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1108.pdf
Maurice Mitchell Innovations, L.P. v. Intell Corporation
I believe in this situation the inventors tell the practitioner what their invention does and he fills in the blanks with M+F elements. A shortcut. Big mistake. "Means for causing" was the threshold train wreck. A person skilled in the art must be able to determine the structure that performs the recited function otherwise the claim in not distinct relative to Title 35 Section 112 second para. The CAFC said none was found in the specification toward this claim element and therefore the claim was not distinct.
First of all I don't like the term "causing". Like "causing a train wreck". Kind of a single event type thing. Right?
Anyway, means plus function requires Bruce Lee type logic and evaluation. What performs the function. Then claim the function and not just any function, the broadest function allowed by the prior art.
Bill
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print