Print

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

[smgsmc]

Hi.  Question on claim construction:

1.  A communications system comprising:

a first transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of claim 1 further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ...


In claim 1, is the use of "a first transmitter" OK, even though I don't introduce the "second transmitter" until claim 2?  I need to distinguish between the two in the dependent claim. 

Thanks.

[Robert K S]

Looks fine.

[yapex]

How about the following?

Claim 2.  The method according to claim 1, further comprising assigning a third address ...

Claim 1 does not mention anything about first or second addresses.

[vman11]

How about the following?

Claim 2.  The method according to claim 1, further comprising assigning a third address ...

Claim 1 does not mention anything about first or second addresses.

Frame a Claim 1 for us

[patentsusa]

How about the following?

Claim 2.  The method according to claim 1, further comprising assigning a third address ...

Claim 1 does not mention anything about first or second addresses.

This makes no sense to me.  Why not just call it a first address or an address if there is no other first or second?

[BobRoberts]

What about:

A communications system comprising:

a transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of claim 1 wherein the transmitter is a first transmitter, and further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ...

[JimIvey]

What about:

A communications system comprising:

a transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of claim 1 wherein the transmitter is a first transmitter, and further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ...

I think that's fine.  My technique was picked up at my first firm and I've used it since then without difficulty.

Here it is:

1. A communications system comprising:

a transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of Claim 1 further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first-mentioned transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ... the first transmitter ... the second transmitter ... .

In short, the first time I mention "the transmitter" in a way that might be confusing with respect to "a second transmitter", I call the first transmitter "the first-mentioned transmitter", after which it is referred to as "the first transmitter."  I don't believe I've ever seen a 112 rejection of that form.

Regards.

[patentsusa]

What about:

A communications system comprising:

a transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of claim 1 wherein the transmitter is a first transmitter, and further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ...

I think that's fine.  My technique was picked up at my first firm and I've used it since then without difficulty.

Here it is:

1. A communications system comprising:

a transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of Claim 1 further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first-mentioned transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ... the first transmitter ... the second transmitter ... .

In short, the first time I mention "the transmitter" in a way that might be confusing with respect to "a second transmitter", I call the first transmitter "the first-mentioned transmitter", after which it is referred to as "the first transmitter."  I don't believe I've ever seen a 112 rejection of that form.

Regards.

I agree, it looks fine.

I do exactly the same thing--first mentioned.

I tend to say everything I have to say about an element in the same place where I introduce it though instead of tacking on limitations on previously introduced elements at the end of the claim.

[ChrisWhewell]

Hi.  Question on claim construction:

1.  A communications system comprising:

a first transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of claim 1 further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ...


In claim 1, is the use of "a first transmitter" OK, even though I don't introduce the "second transmitter" until claim 2?  I need to distinguish between the two in the dependent claim. 

Thanks.

don't call it first and second transmitter.    call the first one a buffer transmitter and the second one a power transmitter, using in place of buffer and power whatever adjective makes you happy and be sure to call it that same word in the spec. and describe what each one is and its functional equivalents and whether the buffer t could be used in place of the power t and vice versa, yadayadayada, & cet.

[vman11]

call the first one a buffer transmitter and the second one a power transmitter, using in place of buffer and power whatever adjective makes you happy and be sure to call it that same word in the spec. and describe what each one is and its functional equivalents

Do you have any good reasons for adding adjectives and functional language when one can clearly get by without any?

[ChrisWhewell]

When one can get by without any, I wouldn't do it. 

If you have a computer as a claim element, and it functions as a server, what would you call it ?

[vman11]

I think you've strayed some here, with due respect.

My understanding is that the concern was regarding numerating 'n' identical components of a widget, whether serving similar or dis-similar roles in the same and/or subsequent dependent claim.

Hi.  Question on claim construction:

1.  A communications system comprising:

a first transmitter ...; and
a receiver ....

2.  The communications system of claim 1 further comprising:

a second transmitter ...;
wherein the first transmitter ...; and
the second transmitter ...


In claim 1, is the use of "a first transmitter" OK, even though I don't introduce the "second transmitter" until claim 2?  I need to distinguish between the two in the dependent claim.

Thanks.

Why would one incorporate any functional language at all?

[ChrisWhewell]

Could be.  Most of these cases are different in some regards and rarely will any single statement be applicable to all.  Its especially difficult since OP's don't generally give all the pertinent info.   I'd almost guarantee that if you do what you suggested, you'll get at least an objection, and possibly a 112.  I won't comment on the use of functional language other than to say that my Big Gorilla client doesn't seem to mind it, and the head honcho is very picky about what goes inside.  He signs the checks and I don't argue with that. 

[BobRoberts]

"don't call it first and second transmitter.    call the first one a buffer transmitter and the second one a power transmitter, using in place of buffer and power whatever adjective makes you happy and be sure to call it that same word in the spec. and describe what each one is and its functional equivalents and whether the buffer t could be used in place of the power t and vice versa, yadayadayada, & cet."

Hi ChrisW,

Don't understand your rationalle.  Actually, as Vman mentioned, it seems off-topic.  Eitherway, we arein a hypothetical with no information regarding what was actually desired to be claimed... 

It seems that adding "buffer" and "power" would be more limiting.  Is there a reason you would imit the claims in this way?  You can always describe the drawing in the detailed description (I believe the Spec. includes the first set of claims as filed) as first transmitter 102 and second transmitter 104, and give examples of what they do and what devices may be utilized to be the first transmitter and second transmitter.

 

[vman11]

Could be.  Most of these cases are different in some regards and rarely will any single statement be applicable to all.  Its especially difficult since OP's don't generally give all the pertinent info.   I'd almost guarantee that if you do what you suggested, you'll get at least an objection, and possibly a 112.  I won't comment on the use of functional language other than to say that my Big Gorilla client doesn't seem to mind it, and the head honcho is very picky about what goes inside.  He signs the checks and I don't argue with that.

Not sure what most of this is about. Of course one can only comment based on the facts of the case presented.

If you actually bother to read the chain of posts you are commenting on, it might help us all in getting truly insightful responses from you, which I am almost certain we can expect out of you. You would have realized for instance that I haven't suggested anything as of yet, I only have objections to what you have suggested.

Your relationship with Gorillas shouldn't be of any pertinence to patent law, despite the checks.

I would be careful if I were you, you seem like a bright enough guy with a good background based on your website. You are on an internet forum, displaying your name and business for others to see and therefore form an image about your work.  Big daddy gorilla maybe on here too.