Print

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

[ecar]

I've looked.  I have spent a couple of hours scrounging the internet.  I've looked around 2111 in the MPEP.  It seems to me that the answer ought to be obvious, but I'd like to be sure.

Does the following work in a preamble?

A vane for use in a turbine or pump to transfer mechanical kinetic energy to or from a fluid comprising:

I'm wondering, in particular, about the use of the word "or."

Humble apologies for the dumb question.

[TataBox]

Sorry to answer your question with a question, but why do you feel it is necessary to spell out the use or field of use in the preamble?

Regards,

[JimIvey]

I don't think it introduces any problems other than those by using alternative phrasing in the body of a claim.

Regards.

[ecar]

Sorry to answer your question with a question, but why do you feel it is necessary to spell out the use or field of use in the preamble?

Regards,

Well, because, in its simplest form, it is just one stinkin' hunk of plastic.

Nonetheless, I think it is a pretty good idea, but I'm really worried about
how I'm gonna get an examiner to bite on just one stinkin' hunk of plastic.

[JimIvey]

Nonetheless, I think it is a pretty good idea, but I'm really worried about
how I'm gonna get an examiner to bite on just one stinkin' hunk of plastic.

You need to focus on why it's a pretty good idea and make that essence the backbone of the entire application and make sure the body of the claims captures that essence as much as possible.

Field of use language in the preamble is not much to hang your hat on.

When you can grab the pebble from my hand, you can sign your own papers....  ;-)  (is that reference too old?)

Good luck.

[ecar]

Nonetheless, I think it is a pretty good idea, but I'm really worried about
how I'm gonna get an examiner to bite on just one stinkin' hunk of plastic.

You need to focus on why it's a pretty good idea and make that essence the backbone of the entire application and make sure the body of the claims captures that essence as much as possible.

Field of use language in the preamble is not much to hang your hat on.

When you can grab the pebble from my hand, you can sign your own papers....  ;-)  (is that reference too old?)

Good luck.

The reference could be old.  I don't understand it.  I am not that young, either.

I have done that which you have suggested as best I can.  But it is a very simple thing - and
very different from that which it is intended to replace.  I think a lot may depend upon how
ornery somebody is.

I have read that sales helps, and it is certainly used everywhere else.  Although it does seem
to me to be a bit inappropriate, I have seen it used increasingly in recent patents.

By the way, another pattern I have seen is one or a few machine claims with a number of dependents,
and one or a few method claims with very few dependents.  Why the difference in the number of dependent claims or is my observation incorrect?

[JimIvey]

The reference could be old.  I don't understand it.  I am not that young, either.

It's from the 1970s TV series, Kung Fu.

By the way, another pattern I have seen is one or a few machine claims with a number of dependents,
and one or a few method claims with very few dependents.  Why the difference in the number of dependent claims or is my observation incorrect?

It depends entirely on the particular innovation.  In some, the thing itself is novel in many ways and its manner of use is novel in fewer ways.  In others, the thing itself is new in fewer ways while its method of use is novel in more ways.

Regards.

[ecar]

The reference could be old.  I don't understand it.  I am not that young, either.

It's from the 1970s TV series, Kung Fu.

Ah ha!  I should watch more television.