Must a machine always be a machine?

[LaplacesDemon]

If I write a description that can include a machine and I intend to use a machine in the embodiment of the invention do I have to preamble it as a machine?

Say for example that I describe a bucket of paint in such a way that someone can ride in the bucket but my plan is to use the paint to paint a car and the person will be really riding in the car.

If I then use the bucket as my independent claim and don't get around to mentioning the car until the 3rd dependent claim does this weaken my patent protection?

In theory, as I understand it, any use of that bucket of paint to move the person should be covered.

My plan is much more up and up than I've described but in its simplest form the idea has value long before you get to the part where I say the "3rd element is a machine" that achieves the goal.

[patentsusa]

I try to be a little more straightforward with at least one of the independent claims.  You might also want to consider damages.  There might be more damages to a claim for a car than a claim for a bucket that someone can ride around it.

[khazzah]

In theory, as I understand it, any use of that bucket of paint to move the person should be covered.

Any manufacture, use or sale of the CLAIMED bucket is infringement.

Doesn't matter how you "describe" the bucket of paint. What matters is what you claim.

You might also want to consider damages.  There might be more damages to a claim for a car than a claim for a bucket that someone can ride around it.

Good point. It's not quite that simple -- your damages won't be in the amount of the entire car, only a portion of it. But that's the general idea behind having claims to a bigger thing that includes the novel thing.