Circuit connections: couple to

[patag2001]

I'm not clear on the particulars.  However, the physics can largely dictate the appropriate word.

Electrically, coupled could narrowly claim a circuit element that is conducting an alternating current, because a transfomer cannot conduct DC.

Further, portions of the circuit are not connected if the tranformer is the element.  Likewise, capacitors only connect if there is an alternating current.  In contrast, inductors do not connect (open circuit) at high enough frequencies.

Hence, the examiner really needs to understand the physics before concluding exactly which word is appropriate.

[Isaac]

Electrically, coupled could narrowly claim a circuit element that is conducting an alternating current, because a transfomer cannot conduct DC.

There are DC coupling methods (resistive coupling, optical coupling) so I don't think electrically coupled necessarily means inductive or capacitive coupling.

[JimIvey]

Is "operatively coupled to" sufficiently well established that I can use it in the claims even if I don't use it explicitly in the spec? 

My understanding is that its meaning is not a term of art in patents but that it's sufficiently clear English to be used without specific definition in the spec.  However, if you want to rely on a particular interpretation, I think you should include that definition in the spec.

I take some comfort in the lack of input from examiners, experienced practitioners, and newly-minted practitioners with the latest rules and such freshly pressed into their already over-stuffed minds that I'm right that it's not a patent term of art with special meaning.

I think you mentioned somewhere that you might need to distinguish some intervening elements (like I resistor, I believe) yet still cover other intervening elements -- by not reciting a "direct" connection.  You might consider what one element communicates to the other that is important for your particular invention.  In my practice areas (mostly software), what gets passed around the elements is often the important part.  You might find that you can focus on something that is blocked by prior art intervening elements but that would be passed by intervening elements in accused devices that use the essence of your invention.

Regards.

[mhsharma]

If this were my case, I would try to argue for "coupled to" or "connected to" over "directly connected to."  On the cases I have worked on, the phrase "directly connected to" is very easy to design around.  Think of how easy it is to place a very low resistance resistor in place of a wire.  Or, what if a cap is used as a blocking cap, etc.?  My 2 centavos...

[patag2001]

I've seen "operatively couple" used over the years.

If "operatively couple" means there is an intermediate layer then this strikes me as redundant and esoteric. 

The word couple alone is sufficient. 

This can be particularly true pending the art and what a POSITA would know.  For example, the transformer couples a first and second circuit.  The wording a first and second circuit are operatively coupled by the transformer is likely to confuse the inventor and a POSITA. Would a jury know what operatively couple means? 

Perhaps if operatively couple is defined in the specification then one can confidently be redundant.

[JimIvey]

If "operatively couple" means there is an intermediate layer then this strikes me as redundant and esoteric. 

The word couple alone is sufficient. 

Well, from what I understand, it means that intermediate elements can be there, not that such intermediate elements are there.

In addition, a processor "coupled to" a memory could be two chips superglued together (so I've been told and don't have a good rebuttal for), whereas a processor "operatively coupled" to a memory requires that the two interact in some functional, operational way.  If that is true (it's some of the patent practitioner lore that I haven't yet debunked or simply rejected), the distinction is important in my practice.

Regards.

[youngbru]

One variation I have seen and used for describing how a processor is connected to other elements is "communicatively coupled". Any commetns on that term?

[BobRoberts]

I've used "coupled" and "operatively coupled", but instead of saying "operatively coupled to" I say "operatively coupled with".  My rationalle?  "Coupled to" seems to me to be more active/direct than "coupled with" and thus using 'with' to me seems(slightly) broader. 

But it very well may be more of a "you say 'tamato', I say 'tomato' " type of scenario.

[smgsmc]

I've also come across "operably coupled".  Is that distinct from "operatively coupled"?