Circuit connections: couple to

[Mike8888]

How do you use the follwing:

    a:  couple to  or
    b:  connected to   or
    c:  directly connected to

in circuit connections between components?

The Examiner rejects the usage of a or b, insist on using c to aviod a prior art, how do you do in this situation, since a damping resister could be used instead of a conductor wire to connect two terminals.

The examiner also said "couple to" is the same as "connected to" nowadays,   any suggestions, thanks.

[JimIvey]

The magic phrase I was taught many, many years ago was "operatively coupled to" -- coupled in a manner that the parts co-operate.

I think that avoids having the two parts hot-glued to the same board being read upon (unlike "coupled") -- though it wouldn't surprise me to find an examiner that would disagree (resting on the same planet, e.g., earth, causes the parts to rotate together and with the surface of the planet and therefore to be coupled in an operative manner -- sigh....).  It also avoids direct coupling to allow for intervening components/elements (in my opinion).

Regards.

[blakesq]

phrases that were used in my previous law firm were "in communication" for mechanical components, and "in signal communication" for electrical/electronic components. 

[khazzah]

The Examiner rejects the usage of a ["coupled to"] or b ["connected to"]

Just so I understand you ... what does "Examiner rejects" mean? Do you mean the Examiner says he found "coupled to" and "connected to" in the prior art?

insist on using c to aviod a prior art, how do you do in this situation, since a damping resister could be used instead of a conductor wire to connect two terminals.

You're quite right that "directly" severely limits your infringement case.

Are you really asking how you can (effectively) claim A-B when the art teaches A-C-B, i.e, an intermediate connection?

[Isaac]

I think that avoids having the two parts hot-glued to the same board being read upon (unlike "coupled") -- though it wouldn't surprise me to find an examiner that would disagree (resting on the same planet, e.g., earth, causes the parts to rotate together and with the surface of the planet and therefore to be coupled in an operative manner -- sigh....).  It also avoids direct coupling to allow for intervening components/elements (in my opinion).

Wouldn't operative coupled generally be used with functional language such that "resting on the same planet" would not be in play?

[JimIvey]

Wouldn't operative coupled generally be used with functional language such that "resting on the same planet" would not be in play?

Maybe.  But I've seen some circuit claims where the anode of this or that is "operatively coupled to" the gate or cathode of this or that without functional language.

One could alternatively recite that this or that connection of a circuit element "receives a voltage (or current)" from some other connection of another circuit element.

Regards.

[smgsmc]

The magic phrase I was taught many, many years ago was "operatively coupled to" -- coupled in a manner that the parts co-operate.

I think that avoids having the two parts hot-glued to the same board being read upon (unlike "coupled") -- though it wouldn't surprise me to find an examiner that would disagree (resting on the same planet, e.g., earth, causes the parts to rotate together and with the surface of the planet and therefore to be coupled in an operative manner -- sigh....).  It also avoids direct coupling to allow for intervening components/elements (in my opinion).

Regards.

Hi Jim.  Does "operatively coupled to" also work for mechanical connections; for example, "a transmission operatively coupled to an engine"?  Thanks.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Wouldn't operative coupled generally be used with functional language such that "resting on the same planet" would not be in play?

For reasonable people, yes.  Then comes the Examiner with the PTO's insane spin on "BRI", and there ya go....

[Wiscagent]

Does "operatively coupled to" also work for mechanical connections; for example, "a transmission operatively coupled to an engine"?

Yes, it's fairly common claim construction.  Consider a gadget that requires part A to be attached to part B.  A and B can be glued together.  If there is a layer of glue between A and B, then A and B are "operatively coupled" but they may not be directly attached.

[Mike8888]

"Just so I understand you ... what does "Examiner rejects" mean? Do you mean the Examiner says he found "coupled to" and "connected to" in the prior art?"

The Examiner found a prior art which has some components in betwwen, so the claim is rejected by using either "coupled to" or "connected to".

"Are you really asking how you can (effectively) claim A-B when the art teaches A-C-B, i.e, an intermediate connection? "

Yes, but tryiny to not using "directly connected to" , wondering what is the best way to describe circuit connections for any new applications in the future.

[still_learnin]

Are you really asking how you can (effectively) claim A-B when the art teaches A-C-B, i.e, an intermediate connection?

Yes, but trying to not using "directly connected to" , wondering what is the best way to describe circuit connections for any new applications in the future.

I've thought about this one before, and was unable to think of claim language for A-connected-to-B that avoided prior art A-C-B while at the same time protected against infringer A-C-B. That is, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too.

As a concrete example, consider:

An apparatus comprising:
a condenser having an outlet;
a compressor having an inlet, the inlet of the compressor coupled to the outlet of the condenser.

Assuming your spec and pros. history allows "coupled" to be interpreted as "directly or indirectly", this claim is good from an infringement point of view because an apparatus having a valve between the inlet and outlet still infringes.

On the flip side, if that apparatus with the intervening valve was prior art, it would anticipate.

But if you amend with "directly coupled" to avoid anticipation, you've lost on infringement. [Let's ignore the question of whether such an amendment is even worthwhile, because of obviousness]

If I missed something, I'd love to know because this concept seems really important.

[smgsmc]

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? 

[smgsmc]

Does "operatively coupled to" also work for mechanical connections; for example, "a transmission operatively coupled to an engine"?

Yes, it's fairly common claim construction.  Consider a gadget that requires part A to be attached to part B.  A and B can be glued together.  If there is a layer of glue between A and B, then A and B are "operatively coupled" but they may not be directly attached.

This is an interesting point.  How is "directly attached" construed?  Is it restricted to, for example, welds and press fits (no intervening materials)?

[Isaac]

Does "operatively coupled to" also work for mechanical connections; for example, "a transmission operatively coupled to an engine"?

Yes, it's fairly common claim construction.  Consider a gadget that requires part A to be attached to part B.  A and B can be glued together.  If there is a layer of glue between A and B, then A and B are "operatively coupled" but they may not be directly attached.

This is an interesting point.  How is "directly attached" construed?  Is it restricted to, for example, welds and press fits (no intervening materials)?

No hard and fast rule.  It might well be that gluing together does constitute a direct attachment despite the layer of glue.  You cannot really tell what kinds of indirect attachings are ruled out without some context.

[smgsmc]

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? 

Hi.  Just bumping this up.  I plan to use this construction in some new apps coming up.  Some terms (such as "extrapolated" or "interpolated") are extremely context-specific and need to be explicitly defined in the spec if I use them in the claims.  Other terms (such as "plurality" or "disposed") have a sufficiently clear well-established definition that they can be used in the claims even if there are no instances in the spec.  Where does "operatively coupled to" fall?  Somewhere in the middle?  Would it be wise to define it in the spec?  Or is it best not to, that is, is this a term intentionally used to provide a little wiggle room during infringement proceedings?  Thanks.