The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 20th, 2018, 4:47pm

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)
   Couple vs Connect
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Couple vs Connect  (Read 1975 times)
patag2001
Junior Member
**




   


Posts: 82
Couple vs Connect
« on: Dec 10th, 2007, 4:52pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Is the verb “couple” broader than “connect”, or vice versa?  Often, I see these verbs used interchangeably and wanted to know what the experts here say about their use.
 
Many Thanks!
 
IP Logged
TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 456
Re: Couple vs Connect
« Reply #1 on: Dec 10th, 2007, 6:26pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I believe couple is broader than connect, and let me tell you why.  This is actually less of a why, but more from experience.
 
If something is coupled to another, the use of the term "coupled" implies that that there can be many ways, to be coupled, i.e. there can be an intermediary between the two somethings that couple, or maybe even a cis or trans coupler between them.
 
Connected generally implies that the two somethings are directly connected.  I have rarely seen it used otherwise.
 
Regards,
 
 
IP Logged
Bill Richards
Full Member
***




   
WWW Email

Posts: 758
Re: Couple vs Connect
« Reply #2 on: Dec 10th, 2007, 7:31pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Why not use "operably connected" or words to that effect?
IP Logged

William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
DJoshEsq
Full Member
***




   
Email

Posts: 104
Re: Couple vs Connect
« Reply #3 on: Dec 10th, 2007, 7:58pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Dec 10th, 2007, 6:26pm, TataBoxInhibitor wrote:
I believe couple is broader than connect, and let me tell you why.  This is actually less of a why, but more from experience.
 
If something is coupled to another, the use of the term "coupled" implies that that there can be many ways, to be coupled, i.e. there can be an intermediary between the two somethings that couple, or maybe even a cis or trans coupler between them.
 
Connected generally implies that the two somethings are directly connected.  I have rarely seen it used otherwise.
 
Regards,
 
 

 
I actually think it is the opposite but I think it is hard to take out of context.  If you are unsure add some language in the spec. Also, you can use claim differentiation in the dependent claims to ensure the term is interpreted broadly.  For example, add a dependent claim wherein the element is directly connected.  
IP Logged

D. Joshua Smith, Esq.
Registered Patent Attorney
McDonald Hopkins, LLC
Cleveland, OH
216-348-5400
DJoshEsq
Full Member
***




   
Email

Posts: 104
Re: Couple vs Connect
« Reply #4 on: Dec 10th, 2007, 8:02pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I actually just reviewed dictionary.com (claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary meaning)...and one of the definitions for "coupled" is "to connect."  So I guess, without more, they are probably similar in scope.
IP Logged

D. Joshua Smith, Esq.
Registered Patent Attorney
McDonald Hopkins, LLC
Cleveland, OH
216-348-5400
Pages: 1 2  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