Intellectual Property Forums (http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi)

(Message started by: patag2001 on Dec 10th, 2007, 4:52pm)

Title: Couple vs Connect
Post by patag2001 on Dec 10th, 2007, 4:52pm
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!


Title: Re: Couple vs Connect
Post by TataBoxInhibitor on Dec 10th, 2007, 6:26pm
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,



Title: Re: Couple vs Connect
Post by Bill Richards on Dec 10th, 2007, 7:31pm
Why not use "operably connected" or words to that effect?

Title: Re: Couple vs Connect
Post by DJoshEsq on Dec 10th, 2007, 7:58pm

on 12/10/07 at 18:26:50, 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.  

Title: Re: Couple vs Connect
Post by DJoshEsq on Dec 10th, 2007, 8:02pm
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.

Title: Re: Couple vs Connect
Post by TataBoxInhibitor on Dec 11th, 2007, 5:33am
Is one of the definitions of "connect," couple?

Regards,


Title: Re: Couple vs Connect
Post by patag2001 on Dec 11th, 2007, 11:21am
Perhaps one of the respondents is correct, the context may need to be considered on the use of “couple” or “connect” in order to test the breath of these terms.

For example, a transformer couples circuit A to circuit B, thereby electrically connecting circuits A and B.  If I check the electrical connection between the circuits using an ohm meter, the circuits will not be electrically coupled.  Hence, coupling the circuits can mean the circuits are electrically connected together using an alternating current, not a direct current.  On the other hand, if the circuits are physically connected or connected together, the circuits are electrically connected to both alternating and direct currents.  

So here, connected would be broader than coupled.

Is there an example of where coupled would be broader than connect?

Many Thanks!

Title: Re: Couple vs Connect
Post by BotchedExperiment on Dec 13th, 2007, 4:48pm
I use bioler-plate that says two items do not have to be touching to be coupled but that two items do have to be touching to be connected to each other.

Coupled to is more broad, becuase I definite as such.



Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board