Print

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

[Yak]

Thanks,
Maybe using the first/second is the simplest way to go.  In dependent claims it is fine to just say:
"The device, wherein said first and second cable each further comprises..."?

[JimIvey]

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.

Indeed!

Reading today my "Really?" seemed harsh.  When I wrote it, it sounded more conciliatory and polite, a genuine invitation to explain what I'm missing....  Sorry about that.

Regards.

[ManOfManyBadIdeas]

Any disadvantages to using "macros"? Something along the lines of:

A device comprising:
a frame;
at least two pulley mechanisms,
          wherein each pulley mechanism comprises a pulley and a pulley cable,
                     wherein said pulley cable is wrapped at least partially around said pulley; and
                     wherein said pulley is attached to the frame.

[JimIvey]

Any disadvantages to using "macros"? Something along the lines of:

None at all.  In fact, I thought of posting something like that here, but decided I should be able to do it more directly.

Just a few touches to your claim....

A device comprising:
a frame;
at least two pulley mechanisms,
          wherein each of the pulley mechanisms comprises a pulley and a pulley cable,
                     wherein said pulley cable is wrapped at least partially around said pulley; and
                     wherein said pulley is attached to the frame.

I would also use "the" rather than "said".  You can also tighten up the wording a bit to eliminate some of the "wherein"s.  But it's more or less a good claim as far as I can tell with a quick look.

Regards.