Print

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

[Yak]

Quick drafting question. 
Say you have an invention having a frame, a pair of pulleys attached to the frame, where each pulley has an associated pulley cable.  The initially drafted claim is:
A device comprising:
a frame;
a pair of pulleys attached to said frame; and,
a pulley cable wrapped at least partially around each of said pair of pulleys.

Is the claim too ambiguous by implying that there is only one pulley cable which engages both pulleys?  The spec and the drawings describe that each pulley has an associated pulley cable.  Should the claim be rewritten to offer more clarity, such as saying "a pair of pulley cables, wherein each cable is wrapped at least partially around one of said pair of pulleys"?  A

Or am I just making this overly confusing?

[klaviernista]

I don't think the original claim language is ambiguous.  But I do think the broadest reasonable interpretation of the original language is that there is a single cable, which engages both pulleys.  It would appear that such an interpretation would not encompass your description of the invention, which has a pair of pulleys, each with its own independent cable.

The issue may be with the use of the term "a" cable.  I'd be hard pressed to pull a cite right now, but I have it my head that I have seen cases where the term "a" has been interpreted as singular.  Thus, "a cable" means "one cable" or "a single cable."  If that is not the interpretation you want, of if you don;t want to spend gobs of money trying to hash that out during examination and/or a markman hearing, it would be better to clarify the language now.

Best,

Klav

[Yak]

Thanks klav,
That is what I suspected.  I've been rewriting it a few times trying to avoid having to use a first pulley, a first cable wrapped around the first pulley, a second pulley, and a second cable wrapped around the second pulley.  Is this the simplest way of doing this? I dislike using the first and second identifiers of two equivalent features because it sometimes makes the dependent claims messy or seems overly repetitive. 

Is this better? Too limiting? Does it better represent the invention description?

A device comprising:
a frame;
a pair of pulleys connected to said frame;and,
a pair of pulley cables, wherein each pulley cable is wrapped at least partially around a corresponding pulley.

[khazzah]

The issue may be with the use of the term "a" cable.  I'd be hard pressed to pull a cite right now, but I have it my head that I have seen cases where the term "a" has been interpreted as singular.  Thus, "a cable" means "one cable" or "a single cable." 

I too am pretty sure there is case law (which I can't point to right now) in which "a" has been limited to single. Based on stuff in the spec and/or pros history.

[khazzah]

A device comprising:
a frame;
a pair of pulleys connected to said frame;and,
a pair of pulley cables, wherein each pulley cable is wrapped at least partially around a corresponding pulley.

I think it the above does more accurately convey what you've described. And I think pair /each / corresponding works just fine, while nicely avoiding first / second. 

I note that while this claim requires Pulley1 to wrap around corresponding Cable1, it doesn't say anything about the whether Pulley1 wraps around Cable2 also. So the claim reads on art in which Pulley1 wraps around both.

Maybe this sort of configuration doesn't make sense in the real world so you're not concerned about that. I'm just saying that's something to be aware of.

Too limiting?

Well, the claim now clearly excludes a single cable embodiment. Definitely *limiting*, but I would think it's not *too* limiting, since single-cable-embodiment wasn't the invention in the first place, as I understand it.

[Yak]

khazzah,
Thank you.  That makes sense.  I do not believe there will be a functional situation where cable 2 would wrap around pulley 1 or vise versa for cable 1/pulley 2. The invention has 2 of each and would ordinarily be used with 2 of each as well.  However, I could see an instance where possibly only 1 of each could be used, although this may not be likely.
I initially tried to use "at least one pulley" with "at least one cable", etc.  But this quickly got confusing.

[JimIvey]

(Amended) A device comprising:
a frame;
a pair of at least two pulleys connected to said frame;and,
a pair of pulley cables, wherein each at least one pulley cable is wrapped at least partially around a corresponding pulley each of the pulleys.

Is that close to what you're looking for?

Regards.

[Yak]

(Amended) A device comprising:
a frame;
a pair of at least two pulleys connected to said frame;and,
a pair of pulley cables, wherein each at least one pulley cable is wrapped at least partially around a corresponding pulley each of the pulleys.

Is that close to what you're looking for?

Regards.

Not sure, I'm wondering now if I am just over complicating what would appear to be simple claim drafting.  Would the claim as amended not still be interpreted as having two cables where at least one of the two cables wraps around each (both in pulleys in combination) but would also include where both cables wrap around each (both pulleys in combination)? 

Is it understood that each is discrete and not both in combination?

Will the embodiment described in the specification be enough to interpret a claim when claim language could be interpreted multiple ways if there was no specification?

Here I don't see a situation where either one of the two cables would ever need to wrap around both of the pulleys, in every application I can see each pulley has an associated cable wrapped around it. 

[JimIvey]

I think my language covers what you're trying to cover (a different, respective pulley cable around each pulley).  But it might not be rock-solid.

How 'bout: "at least a respective (and distinct?) one of two or more (corresponding?) pulley cables wrapped at least partially around each of the pulleys"?

While it seems very narrow and specific, I assume it's important that no pulley cable wraps around more than one of the pulleys and that the claim is intended to be so limited.

Regards.

[khazzah]

A device comprising:
a pair of at least two pulleys; and,
a pair of pulley cables, each at least one pulley cable wrapped at least partially around each of the pulleys.

I think my language covers what you're trying to cover (a different, respective pulley cable around each pulley). 

Hmm. I don't see it that way. The way I read the claim above, Cable1 wraps around Pulley1 and Pulley2. That is, I read "around each of the pulleys" as "around both of the pulleys."

How 'bout: "at least a respective (and distinct?) one of two or more (corresponding?) pulley cables wrapped at least partially around each of the pulleys"?

Nah, I'm still not reading it the way JimIvey intends. I still see "wrapped ... around each of the pulleys" as requiring the cable to go around both of the pulleys. (Am I crazy?)

To avoid the problem I see, I'd avoid "around each of the pulleys" and recast as:

a pair of at least two pulleys; and
at least a respective (and distinct?) one of two or more (corresponding?) pulley cables wrapped ... around a different one of the pulleys

That meets this description:

no pulley cable wraps around more than one of the pulleys

Still reads on one cable wrapping around both pulleys. If you're willing to give up coverage of that (you say you don't envision that in the real world) or if you need to avoid that (in the prior art), you can remove "at least":

a pair of at least two pulleys; and
at least a respective (and distinct?) one of two or more (corresponding?) pulley cables wrapped ... around a different one of the pulleys

[JimIvey]

Hmm. I don't see it that way. The way I read the claim above, Cable1 wraps around Pulley1 and Pulley2. That is, I read "around each of the pulleys" as "around both of the pulleys."

Really?  If I asked you to give a glass of wine to each of our guests, you'd pass around a single glass of wine amongst all the guests?  Or at least you'd consider that a reasonable interpretation of my request?  I'm having a hard time seeing it.

The same would be true if I asked you to give a distinct (different?), respective glass of wine to each of our guests?

If I asked you to give a glass of wine to all our guests, I could see that being misinterpreted.

For what it's worth, I don't see "each" as being synonymous with "both" or "all".

a pair of at least two pulleys; and
at least a respective (and distinct?) one of two or more (corresponding?) pulley cables wrapped ... around a different one of the pulleys

To me, that only requires a single pulley cable wrapped around one (a "different" one) of the pulleys.  It doesn't require that any more than one pulley is wrapped by a pulley cable.  Since I don't know what the different one is different from, I'd interpret "different" as a textual label for one of the pulleys, like "first" or "second", such that you could later recite "the different pulley."  At least that's how it looks to me.  Or perhaps one of the pulleys is somehow not identical to the rest.

If I were facing 112 challenges on my language, I'd do my best to really nail it down:

A device comprising:
at least two pulleys coupled to a frame; and
at least two pulley cables;
wherein each of the pulley cables corresponds to a respective one of the pulleys and is at least partially wrapped about the respective pulley and none other of the pulleys.

I believe "respective" is important there.  I could also add

further wherein none of the cable pulleys is at least partially wrapped around more than a single one of the pulleys, and further wherein no more than a single one of the pulley cables is at least partially wrapped around any of the pulleys.

Regards.

[khazzah]

Hmm. I don't see it that way. The way I read the claim above, Cable1 wraps around Pulley1 and Pulley2. That is, I read "around each of the pulleys" as "around both of the pulleys."

Really?  If I asked you to give a glass of wine to each of our guests, you'd pass around a single glass of wine amongst all the guests?  

Good question. In the context of plain English, I'd pass a different glass of wine to each guest. Somehow the claim context caused me to parse differently.

Looking at this again, I think I erred in not paying attention to the first instance of each.

each at least one pulley cable wrapped at least partially around each of the pulleys.

When I take that into consideration, I do read as Cable1 wrapped around Pulley1.

For what it's worth, I don't see "each" as being synonymous with "both" or "all".

The caselaw definitely says that each doesn't always mean every. Resqnet.com v. Lansa. I have trouble seeing it that way sometimes, as this discussion shows.

The same would be true if I asked you to give a distinct (different?), respective glass of wine to each of our guests?

Nah, "distinct" glass definitely overrides the "every" meaning I was attaching to "each guest."

a pair of at least two pulleys; and
at least a respective (and distinct?) one of two or more (corresponding?) pulley cables wrapped ... around a different one of the pulleys

To me, that only requires a single pulley cable wrapped around one (a "different" one) of the pulleys.  It doesn't require that any more than one pulley is wrapped by a pulley cable.  .

Yep. I see the weakness in my claim.

If I were facing 112 challenges on my language, I'd do my best to really nail it down:

A device comprising:
at least two pulleys coupled to a frame; and
at least two pulley cables;
wherein each of the pulley cables corresponds to a respective one of the pulleys and is at least partially wrapped about the respective pulley and none other of the pulleys.

Can't find any ambiguity there. Seems a tortured way to express a simple concept, but that's why we get paid the big bucks ... to recognize possible ambiguities and remove some of them while maybe choosing to keeping others.

[Yak]

Thank you all.  This thread helps put some things in perspective for me. 

[BobRoberts]

It seems like reasonable minds can differ on the meaning...  I understand that you are trying to avoid using 'First' and 'Second', but perhaps it may make the claim more "crystal clear" by including them?

A device comprising:
a frame;
a first pulley attached to the frame;
a first pulley cable wrapped at least partially around the first pulley;
a second pulley attached to the frame; and
a second pulley cable wrapped at least partially around the second pulley.

And there is nothing preventing the first cable from interfacing with the second pulley and vice versa, but does require two pulley cables. 

When referring to the components from the dependent claims, you can just refer to 'the first pulley', the 'second pulley', or the 'first and second pulleys' , or if you don't like 'first/second', use the 'left/right', 'front/back', 'lifting/lowering' or some other descriptive term for the different pulleys.  It may seem a little awkward at first, but may clarify things in the long run... 

But if you absolutely want to eliminate the 'first/second' references, I'd go with a wherein clause to further clarify as  was mentioned...

Good luck.

[JV]

You might want to think about handling this using claim differentiation.  Have a dependent claim that has something along the lines of "...wherein the pulley cable at least partially wrapped around a first one of the pair of pulleys and the pulley cable at least partially wrapped around a second one of the pair of pulleys is a common pulley cable".  In order for that claim to not be directly repetitious of the independent claim, the independent claim would have to be interpreted to cover instances where each pulley has a different pulley cable.