Print

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

[khazzah]

the following terms have the meanings stated below in addition to any equivalents thereof permitted by law, rule, or equity,

I say you're entitled to equivalents permitted by law regardless of of whether you ask for them in the spec.

the following terms have the meanings stated below ... and in addition to their plain meaning and context within the claims,"

Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You're defining a term and then saying "hey, wait, that's not the only meaning, I also want plain meaning to a POSITA."

OTOH, maybe this is simply a way of having multiple definitions. One that you specifically choose. The other being that which a POSITA would understand. Maybe the court would see multiple definitions as being allowable. 

[JimIvey]

I say you're entitled to equivalents permitted by law regardless of of whether you ask for them in the spec.

Yes.  And, conversely, you're not entitled to equivalents beyond those permitted by law regardless of whether you ask for them in the spec.

In short, you cannot change the law in your favor in the spec.

Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You're defining a term and then saying "hey, wait, that's not the only meaning, I also want plain meaning to a POSITA."

Yeah, application drafters often forget that clarity is essential and try to get a bit nifty, shooting themselves in the foot from time to time.  It's generally good not to define a single term in multiple ways.  People (particularly judges and jurors) should not scratch their heads in confusion whenever they read that term.

I'd say that you should either not define the term at all if it's to be determined by ordinary artisans or defined once and clearly otherwise.  As there is often disagreement among ordinary artisans with respect to some terms, you should define any term that is of fundamental importance to the application.

Stylistically, I'm not fond of "without limitation", though I have used it.  This is more like my style: "As used herein, a 'fastener' is .... [definition].  In this illustrative embodiment, fastener 102 is a screw.  It should be appreciated that fastener 102 can be other types of fasteners such as ...., for example."

Regards.

P.S.  Somewhere in here, years ago, I wrote up a mock spec disclaimer, something about "the broadest range of equivalence allowed by law or statute ever or in the future ...".  Can't find it.  It was a parody of the stuff I see in applications from time to time.  Would have been apropos.

[orangequant]

should look first to generics... and ?? in spec define fastener as "any device for joining together two or more objects, such as but not limited to nails, bolts, screws, pins, welds, [etc]"

I think giving examples of your generic noun, combined with "not limited to" is a good idea.

I'd be with having a statement in your spec where you literally define a term. You might be stuck with your definition. If you leave out the *definition*, you should get coverage for whatever "fastener" means to a POSITA.

i get specific with listing possible structures because of a recent court decision requiring that at least one structure be recited in the spec if the term of art in the claim is generic [at least i think that's what it said].

I recall a recent M+F decision from the Fed Cir along those lines, but can't seem to find it either.

However, in the one I'm thinking of, what happened was that the limitation was found to trigger 112P6 because the noun did not itself impart enough structure. The patentee tried to argue that a POSITA would nonetheless understand what structures were meant. The Fed Cir said that knowledge of a POSITA is not enough when dealing with 112P6, because the statute clearly says that the structure must be discussed in the spec and linked to the function.

It seems like a statement that "fasteners include X, Y, and Z, among others" would cover the bases both ways. If the court decides that "fasteners" has enough structure to avoid 112P6, you didn't really *need* the statement, but I don't see that it hurts. If the court decides that "fasteners" triggers 112P6, then you do need the statement.

thanks, khazzah-- i'm learning that filings are as much art as science. k, i'll leave you guys alone for awhile now.

[orangequant]

aha! didn't see this second page of the thread.
yep, khazzah and Jim--- i may have got myself a self-inflicted wound on that. i can see both sides, but why confuse a court? more simple would be better. [it was all the coffee, i swear!! and reading a couple key decisions scared me into doing it, frustration, etc., really gotta calm down this time around].