Print

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

[dab2d]

Any thoughts on the use of this term. I just got a 112 rejection because of its use. I have seen it used for as long as I have been working in patents. Is the term improper?

[patentologist]

i think its just "comprises" as opposed to comprises of.
normally, i see "consists of"

But either way, independent claims are
1.  A method for using the term comprising, comprising:
    using a letter c.
or in a dependent claim

The method of claim 1, wherein using the letter c comprises adding a letter o.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Is the term improper?

I've always viewed it as improper or at least a sloppy usage, but it's easy enough to fix.  Also, same for "comprised of".  The whole comprises (that is, it holds or embraces or enfolds) the constituent parts.  You wouldn't say that the whole "holds of" the parts or "embraces of" the parts.

[JimIvey]

My understanding of English grammar is consistent with DDPM's.  However, I have a larger problem with "comprises of".

"comprises" and "consists of" are polar opposites in claims.  "comprises of" looks like some sort of hybrid of the two.  I'm not sure how that would be interpreted -- "comprises" or "consists of".  Even if there is some established rule or law on that, my preference would be to stick with "comprises" or "consists of" in a manner that makes the distinction there between more clear rather than less clear.

Regards.

[dab2d]

I guess I am a little surprised by some of the responses.  I agree that it is sloppy usage, but could it really amount to a closed ended term, equal to that of "consisting of"? I think that while it may be sloppy, it is understood that open ended claim equals to some use of the term 'comprise' and a closed ended claim equals some usage of the term 'consist'.

It would be surprising to me that 'comprises' would be viewed to completely change its understood intent by the mere placement of an 'of' after it. The claims are still examined and prosecuted on the assumption that it is an open ended term. 

I did a search on "comprises of" in claims of patents and got 246316 hits. Given its extensive usage, would you think that it has become part of the accepted terminology. When does a possible misusage of a term start to acquire its own meaning if it is repeated enough? 

In litigation, would one argue that it is a closed ended term?

[JimIvey]

I did a search on "comprises of" in claims of patents and got 246316 hits.

How many of those were after the 1952 Act?

How many hits do you get for "consists of" and "consists essential of"?  That's a long-standing member of well accepted claim terminology, too.

Back when I was a smart-arse (yes, more so than now), I used to answer yes|no questions with "yo" or "nes."  I think "comprising of" could be a "yo" or a "nes."  Given that I've never seen "comprising of" in a claim, I would assume that it's a clerical error and that the applicant intended either "comprising" or "consisting of".  I would then try to divine from the specification and other clues which was intended.  Of course, that's in the absence of case law on the topic.  If I were being paid to resolve that issue, I'd look it up.

Absent some authority that indicates that "comprising of" means "comprising", I would not let a claim for which I was responsible to include "comprising of".  It doesn't mean that I'm right -- only that I have more confidence in terms whose meanings I believe I understand.  If someone showed me authority on the matter, I'd relax.

Regards.