Print

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

[jc4patents]

   It is my practice to always say (in both spec and claims)
"element A is coupled to element B" rather
than "element A is connected to element B" even when a drawing shows
them connected.

   I have always done this so as to be more general and to imply there
may be something between these elements and if that is the case
in a competing device, it still infringes the claim whereas it might not
if the claim said connected.
   In a dependent claim, you
can always state "in another embodiment, an element C is inserted
between elements A and B"
(this can be done, of course, with "coupled" or "connected".

   Recently, I noticed a patent that uses the same convention but also
inserts a phrase (e.g., at end of the description) stating that the use
of the word "coupled" implies that the elements may be directly connected
together or may be coupled through one or more intervening elements.

    I think it might be a good idea to insert such a note - anyone see a
reason for not doing so ?  Without this phrase, there could be an argument
as to what it means.

[Wiscagent]

"[The spec sates that] 'coupled' implies that the elements may be directly connected together or may be coupled through one or more intervening elements."

"... it might be a good idea to insert such a note - anyone see a reason for not doing so?"

The note makes sense to me, but be sure to include claims to the gadget with: (a) the elements coupled to each other [directly or indirectly]; (b) the elements directly coupled to each other; and (c) the elements indirectly coupled to each other.

[JustAnotherExaminer]

   It is my practice to always say (in both spec and claims)
"element A is coupled to element B" rather
than "element A is connected to element B" even when a drawing shows
them connected.

   I have always done this so as to be more general and to imply there
may be something between these elements and if that is the case
in a competing device, it still infringes the claim whereas it might not
if the claim said connected.
   In a dependent claim, you
can always state "in another embodiment, an element C is inserted
between elements A and B"
(this can be done, of course, with "coupled" or "connected".

   Recently, I noticed a patent that uses the same convention but also
inserts a phrase (e.g., at end of the description) stating that the use
of the word "coupled" implies that the elements may be directly connected
together or may be coupled through one or more intervening elements.

    I think it might be a good idea to insert such a note - anyone see a
reason for not doing so ?  Without this phrase, there could be an argument
as to what it means.

I know that in the circuitry areas, "coupled" is generally interpreted by examiners as "directly connected with zero intervening elements" while "connected" implies there may be intervening elements.

For mechanical and general use of the term, check out
JOHNSON WORLDWIDE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
v.
ZEBCO CORPORATION and BRUNSWICK CORPORATION.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1331.pdf

(search for "coupled" in the pdf)