Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PatentDave]

What is the requirement (or consensus) on providing reference numerals for "means for" language in both the specification and the drawings? 

As an example, say I have an upper arm 10, a lower arm 12, and means for pivotably connecting the upper and lower arms.  The means for pivotably connecting may include a ball joint.

In this example, assume that the drawings show a ball joint.  Is it better to provide a reference numeral for the "means for pivotably connecting," the "ball joint," or both?

Thanks.

[Robert K S]

Habituate yourself away from all "means for" language.  It can't do you any good.  Any "means" for doing something not explicitly disclosed in your specification won't be covered by a means + function type claim.  Me, I would couch it as "a pivotable connector" rather than "means for pivotably connecting".

[jc4patents]

 I agree with Robert K S - structural language is better (broader) than
the use of means format.