Print

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

[khazzah]

a pair of at least two pulleys

[This came up in another thread in this same subject area, but I'm starting a new thread to avoid hijacking the original thread.]

To me, pair means EXACTLY TWO. Period. Does adding "of at least two" change this?

I say No. I say that "pair" is a fine word -- in fact, it's the *best* word -- if you are OK with limiting yourself to exactly two. But if you're not OK with that, leave out "pair" and instead say "plurality of pulleys" or "at least two pulleys".

JimIvey, you know I don't mean to pick on you, and that I'll respect whatever you say on this point.

[JimIvey]

JimIvey, you know I don't mean to pick on you, and that I'll respect whatever you say on this point.

No worries.  Call me "Jim".

I believe I had "a pair of" struck-through, i.e., deleted.

I believe that "a pair of" means "two".  I believe that adding a third whatever doesn't not negate the presence of the "pair" of the subset of the three whatevers.  In other words, the adage that adding more does not avoid infringement of a "comprising" claim applies to things that come in pairs.

If you want to recite "exactly two", you can.  Or, you can recite "exactly one pair", or "no more than one pair" (which might cover zero pair), or "two and only two", or "at least two and no more than two", etc.

While I think reciting "a pair of" does not limit the claim to no more than two of the things, I would prefer to use "at least two" in an overabundance of caution.

Regards.

[ManOfManyBadIdeas]

This may sound weird, but "at least two" should be interpreted to mean any of "two", "three", "four" etc. So the wording given can be read as "a pair of two pulleys" or "a pair of three pulleys" etc. Now for sounding weird part, that doesn't look like proper English to me (neither does "a pair of at least two pulleys"), but I think it should be interpreted as "four pulleys", "six pulleys" etc.

a pair of pluralities = plurality of pairs

[ManOfManyBadIdeas]

I think I made a mistake, since there doesn't appear to be any indication that two groups of pulleys have the same number of pulleys. To me it reads something like "two groups of pulleys each group comprising a plurality of pulleys" so it can be 4, 5, 6, etc...

[klaviernista]

This may sound weird, but "at least two" should be interpreted to mean any of "two", "three", "four" etc. So the wording given can be read as "a pair of two pulleys" or "a pair of three pulleys" etc. Now for sounding weird part, that doesn't look like proper English to me (neither does "a pair of at least two pulleys"), but I think it should be interpreted as "four pulleys", "six pulleys" etc.

a pair of pluralities = plurality of pairs

I don't think that Jim's word ("at least two") reads in the way you describe.  as I read that language, it means that there are at least two pulleys, i.e., 2, 3, 4, . . . . pulleys.

The question arises as to whether the modifying term, "pair" is needed or desired to describe the relationship of the pulleys in the system.  E.g., a "pair" of pulleys or a
"pulley pair" could be interpreted differently than "at least two" pulleys, in that it could imply that there is some structural or functional relationship between the pulleys.

[khazzah]

I believe I had "a pair of" struck-through, i.e., deleted.

Indeed you did. My mistake.

I believe that "a pair of" means "two".  I believe that adding a third whatever doesn't not negate the presence of the "pair" of the subset of the three whatevers.  In other words, the adage that adding more does not avoid infringement of a "comprising" claim applies to things that come in pairs.

Gotcha. I'm not sure I agree ... while comprising gives you a presumption that other elements can be added, I'm thinking maybe the plain language understanding that pair means exactly two overrides the presumption.

But I don't have as much experience as others on this board, and I can't cite to any caselaw to support my position, so I'll leave it at that.

If you want to recite "exactly two", you can.  Or, you can recite "exactly one pair", or "no more than one pair" (which might cover zero pair), or "two and only two", or "at least two and no more than two", etc.

With these particular phrases, does the transition word "comprising" allow you to add items and still infringe ... or does the plain language meaning of "exactly" override the presumption of openness?

[BobRoberts]

"a pair of at least two pulleys"

I guess I thought more along the lines of ManOfManyBadIdeas, except I would call it a pair of pluralities (rather than plurality of pairs).  The "of at least two pulleys" exists in the phrase and seems like it must be given some weight. 

I understand Jim's point about any device that includes a pair, or a pair + 1, or a pair + an apple (ok, fine, I won't quit the day job) would also infringe.  In those examples (even the one with the apple), a pair would be present.  It would make me wonder why it was worded as "a pair of at least two pulleys" rather than "at least two pulleys", and I might go looking in the written description and the Pros. History to see if it were limited in some fashion there.  Both "a pair" and "at least two pulleys" are present, and interpreting it merely/only as "a pair" would seem to be ignoring a clear limitation. 

[Yak]

khazzah,
Thanks for raising this point.  I was about to ask the same thing on the prior thread you referred to. 

I believe that "a pair of" means "two".  I believe that adding a third whatever doesn't not negate the presence of the "pair" of the subset of the three whatevers.  In other words, the adage that adding more does not avoid infringement of a "comprising" claim applies to things that come in pairs.

While I think reciting "a pair of" does not limit the claim to no more than two of the things, I would prefer to use "at least two" in an overabundance of caution.

So does this mean that if the independent claim reads, "A device comprising a pair of pulleys" that there is no need for a follow-on dependent claim "The device of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of pulleys"?

[JimIvey]

Gotcha. I'm not sure I agree ... while comprising gives you a presumption that other elements can be added, I'm thinking maybe the plain language understanding that pair means exactly two overrides the presumption.

So, if a box contains a pair of shoes and I toss in a third shoe, does the box no longer contain a pair of shoes.  I'd content that it does. 

In particular, if I hand you the box of 3 shoes and ask you to take a pair of shoes out of the box, I'd wager you'd be able to successfully complete the task without much difficulty.

So does this mean that if the independent claim reads, "A device comprising a pair of pulleys" that there is no need for a follow-on dependent claim "The device of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of pulleys"?

Well, two things come to mind. 

First, you couldn't have the dependent claim unless "pair" could include more than two. 

Second, I'm a big fan of using the doctrine of claim differentiation in dependent claims to protect the breadth of broader claims.  In other words, if you use a dependent claim to say that the "pair" includes no more than two, then it should be presumed that "pair" in the parent claim could include more than two.  However, the doctrine of claim differentiation is just a guideline; courts are free to disregard it.  All I can do is try.

Regards.

[Yak]

In particular, if I hand you the box of 3 shoes and ask you to take a pair of shoes out of the box, I'd wager you'd be able to successfully complete the task without much difficulty.

What if there were 3 left shoes in the box and a plain language understanding of a pair of shoes includes a left and a right shoe?

Second, I'm a big fan of using the doctrine of claim differentiation in dependent claims to protect the breadth of broader claims.  In other words, if you use a dependent claim to say that the "pair" includes no more than two, then it should be presumed that "pair" in the parent claim could include more than two.  However, the doctrine of claim differentiation is just a guideline; courts are free to disregard it.  All I can do is try.

First I have really heard of this doctrine of claim differentiation. Thanks, I will try to learn up on that concept. 

[JimIvey]

What if there were 3 left shoes in the box and a plain language understanding of a pair of shoes includes a left and a right shoe?

Then, there wouldn't have been a pair of shoes in the box before I added the third.  Use marbles instead of shoes if that makes it more clear.  My point is that adding a third to a "pair" does not destroy the existence of the pair.

Regards.

P.S.  This reminds me of an old riddle.  Two people are born on the same day to the same mother and are not twins (identical or otherwise).  What are they?

[Yak]

Got it.   

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

P.S.  This reminds me of an old riddle.  Two people are born on the same day to the same mother and are not twins (identical or otherwise).  What are they?

Children of Nadya Suleman.

[JimIvey]

P.S.  This reminds me of an old riddle.  Two people are born on the same day to the same mother and are not twins (identical or otherwise).  What are they?

Children of Nadya Suleman.

That qualifies as correct.  The traditional answer is triplets.  But any _-tuplets work.

Regards.

[ManOfManyBadIdeas]

This may sound weird, but "at least two" should be interpreted to mean any of "two", "three", "four" etc. So the wording given can be read as "a pair of two pulleys" or "a pair of three pulleys" etc. Now for sounding weird part, that doesn't look like proper English to me (neither does "a pair of at least two pulleys"), but I think it should be interpreted as "four pulleys", "six pulleys" etc.

a pair of pluralities = plurality of pairs

I don't think that Jim's word ("at least two") reads in the way you describe.  as I read that language, it means that there are at least two pulleys, i.e., 2, 3, 4, . . . . pulleys.

The question arises as to whether the modifying term, "pair" is needed or desired to describe the relationship of the pulleys in the system.  E.g., a "pair" of pulleys or a
"pulley pair" could be interpreted differently than "at least two" pulleys, in that it could imply that there is some structural or functional relationship between the pulleys.

I agree that it doesn't read the way I described it in the post you quoted, but I did correct myself in the follow up post (which interprets the wording in the same way BobRoberts does). You are reading the claim in way that interprets "a pair" to mean "a matching pair", as in "a pair of gloves". I agree that it is a possibility if specification consistently uses the words to mean just that. Even then, I am not sure if that satisfies the requirement to use broadest possible interpretation. It would also be necessary that the specification only describes the pulleys that are of special type so that they can only come in matching pairs (interpreting the term to mean "matching" requires it being obvious based on the objects it refers to, so that narrows down the meaning of the word "pulley" to mean "a special pulley of the kind that only comes in pairs"). However, that reading also clashes with what follows ("at least two..."). While "a pair" is often used to mean "a matching pair", it is *never* used in that way if followed by those words, so I do not think it would be reasonable to read it to mean "a matching pair" in that context. For example, nobody will ever say "a pair of at least two shoes" to mean "a matching pair of shoes", and the only way to interpret it this way is to give zero weight to the words "at least two". The only speculation that I can imagine that will let this type of interpretation stand is if the inventor is being his own lexicographer and defines the meaning explicitly in the specification, either by declaring that "a pair of at least two is to mean that at least two including a matching pair", or uses this expression in the specification while its meaning is clear by for example describing a figure. But I think at this point we would be assuming too much about the specification. So pulling out Occam's razor I will say those words means "two pluralities of pulleys".