Print

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

[Jonathan]

I am presented with a situation wherein an invention has a cylinder. A literal cylinder.

Being cylindrical is mainly aesthetic. It can can be any contiguous shape and still perform the same function.

I am ok with the method claim but generically claiming a shape is stumping me.

Any suggestions?

[JimIvey]

Kpanlogo is right.  You can avoid the common interpretation of the right circular cylinder by showing a few non-circular alternatives:  "In Figure X, cylinder 102 is shown to have a pentagonal cross-section."  I typically also use dependent claims to match some specific non-circular cross-sections, leveraging the doctrine of claim differentiation to avoid importing any implicit limitations regarding circular cross sections.  Of course, that can give you a restriction requirement if you have too many of those, but that shouldn't matter much, assuming the particular cylinder cross-section shape doesn't matter too much.

And, of course, you can find a dictionary definition of "cylinder" that you like and just put it in the spec.

Regards.

[Jonathan]

thanks!

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Push it further.  What's this cylinder-of-any-shape do?  Some sort of support?

Does it have to be contiguous about its periphery?  Would a nearly-closed "C" shape do as well?  What about an "H"?

[Jonathan]

Cylinder of any shape will do.

A square will do.

A rectangle, hexagon.. whatever.. well actually there is a limit for the intended use but yeah I want to start really broad and then go into specifics, via the dependents.

The C-shape is on my mind, as well.

[Robert K S]

Remember that defining too broadly can get you in as much trouble as defining too narrowly.  It opens the door to an examiner pulling up irrelevant prior art and saying that it meets your claims.

"Prior art teaches a cube, where a cube is a cylinder..."

[Kpanlogo]

That's right ... a cube is a cylinder ... so is a dime ... a dollar bill maintained in a planar configuration is a cylinder on three different axes ...

[smgsmc]

The word "cylinder" is a much misunderstood word.
People generally assume a cylinder is a right circular cylinder. Some even assume it's hollow.
But to a mathematician, cylinders can have any cross-sectional shape, so a standard pine "2-by-4" board has an outer cylindrical shape ... let's not even get into whether it's hollow.
I have seen patent attorneys stumble around with phrases like "uniform profile along the length thereof" and "constant cross section" and such when the word "cylinder" is precisely the word needed.

But perhaps you don't need this word. I don't understand "contiguous shape" ... sounds like any connected body of any shape. So a funnel cake would have a contiguous shape by my understanding once you shake off all the little fried batter droplets caught up in its tangled form. I can do entirely without the powdered sugar thank you.

Maybe you just need a beam, or an arm, or an elongate member ... but what the heck does elongate even mean? I suppose a cigarette is elongate and a dime is not ... but once again ... there are concise words for these things ... prolate and oblate come to mind. But I digress.

I suppose that any word often misunderstood will likely be misconstrued and should therefore be avoided.

Just say "a cylidrically mainly aesthetic contiguous shape adapted to perform the same function as a funnel cake" and you'll be good to go.

On the other hand some distinguish between a "cylinder" and a "prism".  In this usage, a "cylinder" has a curvilinear cross-section.  A solid with all planar faces is a "prism".  In this convention, a rectangular solid (such as a cube, a 2 X 4 board, a flattened dollar bill) is a prism, but not a cylinder.  You seem to be saying that a "cylinder" refers to an arbitrary 3-D shape (leaving aside the issue of internal features and localized surface features).  Is that your intent?  If so, I would explicitly define it in the spec.  I think you would have a hard time arguing that usage otherwise.  If I claimed a cylinder, would a competitor's rectangular solid infringe?