Print

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

[bakhus]

If element A is coupled to element B, and affect each other in some way, possibly through a coupler element C that mediate the effect E between the elements, but the elements A, and B, in some embodiments, may be directly connected and affect each other directly without any medium,
then should the coupler element be recited in a claim as an element of the device?

What I think, is that stating the coupler element can place the effect E in a structural element of its own, instead of being stated as a functional limitation on elements A and B, and for this reason, and for the reason that the coupler element may exist in some embodiments, I would like to recite the coupler element. For example, the claim may recite: 'a coupler element C coupling said element A, and said element B, and does E to A when B does Y'.

On the other hand the coupler element is optional, since there are embodiments without the coupler element, so such embodiments don't have a real coupler element, and so in such embodiments it seems like A, and B still would have to be functionally limited by the coupling function.

On the other other hand, i.e. the first hand, could the coupler element be asserted to exist, when it doesn't really exist? Could the properties of A, and B that function in the coupling be asserted to be a structural element on its own i.e. the coupler?

A-C-B          - coupled through a coupler C
A-B             - connected directly
(A,c)-(c,B)   - having an embedded coupler c
(A,p)-(p,B)   - having a property functioning as a coupler p

I have read this on the 'Circuit connections' thread:

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.

So the glue there can be the coupler. If element B is made of glue, then element B is both element B, and the coupler. Could that one element B-made-of-glue play the role of two elements (the coupler, and B) in the claim? The property of B which assist it to be the coupler is its stickiness. But, it could have been other properties, e.g., suppose A, and B, are a nut and a bolt, then they could be coupled by screwing them together, and then could the properties of the nut and the bolt that allow them to be so connected be defined in the claim as a coupler element?

[BobRoberts]

As I'm a bit short on time, I may not have fully understood your post, but believe I got the gist...

I would claim the broadest embodiment as an independent claim:

A widget comprising:
...
A coupled with B
...

Then in a dependent, I would claim one of the following -

the widget of Claim 1, further comprising:
a coupler C, wherein A is coupled with C and C is coupled with  B

the widget of Claim 1, further comprising:
a coupler C disposed between and coupling A and/with B

In the dependent, you can mention more about the effect if you wish, but I'm not sure what that wil add structurally to an apparatus claim (it really depends on the specifics).

For example, In the glue example, you could say:
A (operationally) coupled with B ...

And in a dependent claim,
the widget of claim 1, further comprising glue, wherein A is coupled with B using/through the glue
or
the widget of claim 1 further comprising glue, wherein A is coupled with the glue, and the glue is coupled with B
etc...


Now if you believe that the coupler C is required for patentability, then I would just mention the coupler in the independent claim. 

Good luck.

[khazzah]

On the other other hand, i.e. the first hand, could the coupler element be asserted to exist, when it doesn't really exist? Could the properties of A, and B that function in the coupling be asserted to be a structural element on its own i.e. the coupler?
(A,p)-(p,B)   - having a property functioning as a coupler p

Asserted by who? You really need to look at this from two viewpoints: patentability; and infringement. I'm not sure which you're thinking about, or if you're conflating the two.

Generally speaking, you want to claim exactly those elements necessary to avoid the prior art, and no more. So I agree with BobRoberts: put the coupler in dependent claims rather than independent, unless the coupler is needed to distinguish over the prior art.

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.

So the glue there can be the coupler. If element B is made of glue, then element B is both element B, and the coupler. Could that one element B-made-of-glue play the role of two elements (the coupler, and B) in the claim?

So the hypothetical claim here positively recites the coupler?

A;
B;
a coupler coupling A and C;

And you're wondering if that claim distinguishes over a reference showing glue between A and B?

It depends on the scope of "coupler" as understood by a POSITA. If a POSITA understands coupler to include a gob of glue, then No, the claim doesn't distinguish. If a POSITA understands coupler to NOT include a gob of glue, then Yes, the claim distinguishes.


A similar analysis applies for the claim with the coupling function but no structural element named

coupler:
A;
B coupled to A;

If a POSITA understands "coupled to" to include the function of sticking together with a gob of glue, then No, the claim doesn't distinguish. If a POSITA understands coupler to NOT include the function of sticking together with a gob of glue, then Yes, the claim distinguishes.

I suspect the meaning of "coupler" and "coupling" to a POSITA probably turns on what type of technology we're talking about, so that in some arts, glue is a coupler/does coupling and in others glue is not.

[bakhus]

The thing is that element A has function Fa, and element B has function Fb, and the coupler element C has a function Fc. Without the coupler element C, the function Fc is embedded in, and performed by A, and B. If  I use:

A widget comprising:
A for Fa;
B for Fb; and
said A coupled with said B so that Fc is performed between said A and said B.

then, I think, Fc is not a structural element. In:

A widget comprising:
A for Fa, and for Fc between said A and an other element;
B for Fb, and for Fc between said B and an other element; and
said A coupled with said B so that said Fc is performed between said A and said B.

then, I think, Fc is part of A, and a part of B, but then what about the embodiments that has a real element C?

I am attempting to capture the function Fc as a structure. Maybe it is a mistake? I remember reading a recommendation to write functions as structures somewhere.

I thought that maybe there is a way to separate some properties of A, and B, and make from them an element C. Like e.g., view the bolt, and nut's threaded parts as a separate structure, and say that these threaded parts are the coupler C, and that that coupler (the threads) is embedded in the nut, and the bolt.

[khazzah]

A widget comprising:
A for Fa;
B for Fb; and
said A coupled with said B so that Fc is performed between said A and said B.

then, I think, Fc is not a structural element.

Agreed.

A widget comprising:
A for Fa, and for Fc between said A and an other element;
B for Fb, and for Fc between said B and an other element; and
said A coupled with said B so that said Fc is performed between said A and said B.

then, I think, Fc is part of A, and a part of B,

Not sure I agree. It seems weird to say a function is a "part of" a structure.

but then what about the embodiments that has a real element C?

So in these embodiments it's C that does Fc? *IF* we can no longer say that A does Fc and B does Fc, then the "pure function, no C" claim does not read on the C embodiment.

I thought that maybe there is a way to separate some properties of A, and B, and make from them an element C. Like e.g., view the bolt, and nut's threaded parts as a separate structure, and say that these threaded parts are the coupler C, and that that coupler (the threads) is embedded in the nut, and the bolt.

You can, to a large degree, choose your language carefully to get the effect you want. If a POSITA understands coupler to include threads-on-a-bolt-plus-matching-threads-in-a-nut, then using the word "coupler" will have the effect you want: reciting a separate structure which performs a coupling function. If there is no such word, I suppose you could either explicitly re-define the word in your spec, or you could use means-plus-function to capture the threads-on-a-bolt-plus-matching-threads-in-a-nut structure.

I am attempting to capture the function Fc as a structure. Maybe it is a mistake? I remember reading a recommendation to write functions as structures somewhere.

Generally speaking, adding a structural element narrows a claim and thus helps you distinguish over the art, precisely because you are limiting yourself to a particular structure. As opposed to claiming function only, in which case the functional language is met by any structure that accomplishes the function.

I think we've probably gone as far as we can with pure hypotheticals. The best  way to draft a particular caim depends on the technology area, and knowledge of the prior art you need to distinguish over.

[bakhus]

A widget comprising:
A for Fa, and for Fc between said A and an other element;
B for Fb, and for Fc between said B and an other element; and
said A coupled with said B so that said Fc is performed between said A and said B.

then, I think, Fc is part of A, and a part of B,

Not sure I agree. It seems weird to say a function is a "part of" a structure.

But Fc would escape 112p6 due to being described as a limitation on a structure, right?

I am attempting to capture the function Fc as a structure. Maybe it is a mistake? I remember reading a recommendation to write functions as structures somewhere.

Generally speaking, adding a structural element narrows a claim and thus helps you distinguish over the art, precisely because you are limiting yourself to a particular structure. As opposed to claiming function only, in which case the functional language is met by any structure that accomplishes the function.

I think that according to this, the best option is:

A widget comprising:
A for Fa;
B for Fb; and
said A coupled with said B so that Fc is performed between said A and said B.

but, wouldn't anyone complain that the function Fc is described without describing how it is done? the structure and acts related to Fc? (112p6 style?)

About reciting fewer structural elements, can I leave out of the claim structural elements that are required for an operation of other structural elements that are described in the claim? Suppose in this case that only embodiments with a coupler element C are correct, and that I recite only A and B in the claim, and do not recite C, would it be OK like this without a recitation of C? I think that I read somewhere that the claim need to have all the elements required for its operation, or something like that, and due to that it concerns me. Logically, I think that whomever read the claim can see the spec and figure out the missing parts, but it seems like the evaluation of claims is performed primarily according to traditions.

[khazzah]

A widget comprising:
A for Fa, and for Fc between said A and an other element;
B for Fb, and for Fc between said B and an other element; and
said A coupled with said B so that said Fc is performed between said A and said B.

then, I think, Fc is part of A, and a part of B,
But Fc would escape 112p6 due to being described as a limitation on a structure, right?

I'd state it differently. Function ie "Fc", does not escape 112P6. Structure, ie A, escapes 112P6.

The hypo isn't specific enough to determine whether or not A falls under 112P6 or not. You didn't use "means", so we start from a presumption against 112P6. Even so, if the term "A" doesn't connote enough structure to perform Fa and Fb, then it still falls under 112P6.

A widget comprising:
A for Fa;
B for Fb; and
said A coupled with said B so that Fc is performed between said A and said B.

but, wouldn't anyone complain that the function Fc is described without describing how it is done? the structure and acts related to Fc? (112p6 style?)

Again, the variables here (A, B, Fa, Fb) are not specific enough to determine whether 112P6 is invoked or not. If A *does* connote "enough" structure to perform function Fc, then no 112P6, and vice versa.

I think that I read somewhere that the claim need to have all the elements required for its operation, or something like that

I suppose it depends on how you read the "it" in "its operation".

A car comprising:
a brake assembly; and
a wheel,
the brake assembly comprising:
a pair of calipers configured to apply pressure to the wheel.
 
Nothing wrong with that claim, even though it leaves out 95% of the components of a car. In fact, it leaves out many of the components in the part which is presumably novel, the brake assembly.

I think the definiteness requirement dictates which elements, and which relationships between them, must be present in a particular claim.

Logically, I think that whomever read the claim can see the spec and figure out the missing parts

Absolutely. The spec is *required* to enable a POSITA to make and use the claimed invention.

[bakhus]

I'd state it differently. Function ie "Fc", does not escape 112P6. Structure, ie A, escapes 112P6.

The hypo isn't specific enough to determine whether or not A falls under 112P6 or not. You didn't use "means", so we start from a presumption against 112P6. Even so, if the term "A" doesn't connote enough structure to perform Fa and Fb, then it still falls under 112P6.
...
...
Again, the variables here (A, B, Fa, Fb) are not specific enough to determine whether 112P6 is invoked or not. If A *does* connote "enough" structure to perform function Fc, then no 112P6, and vice versa.

This is very troubling. I thought that if the element B is limited to some structure, then it can be further limited by any function without invoking 112p6. "B for Fb" should be interpreted as the subset of structures of type B, that can perform function Fb. So "B for Fb" does have structural limitation (to B). Suppose B is something like a bolt, or a nail, or a processor, or a computer, or a coupler. So you say, "a computer for calculating income tax values" would fall into 112p6, and "a computer for calculating stuff" will not, because a computer have the structure to calculate stuff, but without the algorithm, it doesn't have the structure to calculate income tax values, so that would be searched at the spec. "a nail for fastening" would not invoke 112p6, but "a nail for curing cancer" would, right?

112p6:

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

It seem to be right - the nail is a mean for curing cancer, but it is not possible to know from what we know of a nail structure, material, or acts how it support 'cancer curing'. On the other hand, a nail is a nail, with a structure of a nail, and however it is used, or acts to cure cancer, it is still a nail, and its nail structure would be used for it. On the other hand maybe it is a special nail, and structurally what make it special is not disclosed in the "a nail for curing cancer" element statement. If there is no need to disclose the special nail, then "a nail" would have sufficed instead. 

So in order to avoid 112p6, I would need to use only elements that their names determine their structure, and function? What do you do if you can describe some element using a function, but there is no known name for it? If you would recite it by its underlying structure, then you would limit yourself to that recited structure.