Print

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

[bakhus]

If one element (element1)  performs multiple functions, should the claim have multiple elements, corresponding to the functions that are performed?
Would a claim with such multiple elements be infringed by a product having only one element (element1)?

To illustrate, a computer can have a storage media containing algorithm1, algorithm2, algorithm3, ... algorithmN. The infringing product would comprise a computer element, with a storage containing programs representing the enumerated algorithms. If the claim would recite an element for each algorithm, like "algorithm1 performer", "algorithm2 performer", wouldn't that imply that the claim cover only a device that have N computers? Would a device that have only one computer infringe such a claim?

[JimIvey]

If the claim would recite an element for each algorithm, like "algorithm1 performer", "algorithm2 performer", wouldn't that imply that the claim cover only a device that have N computers?

Wow.  It's been a very long time since computers could perform no more than a single task at a time.  I'd bet that half of the posters here weren't alive when computers were so limited.

While I don't have hard and fast authority that this is the case, I believe most ordinary computer engineering artisans understand that a single computer can perform multiple algorithms.

For what it's worth, I typically make it explicit that the tasks involved can be performed by a single computer or by multiple computers cooperating in a distributed manner.

Regards.

[khazzah]

If one element (element1)  performs multiple functions, should the claim have multiple elements, corresponding to the functions that are performed?
Would a claim with such multiple elements be infringed by a product having only one element (element1)?

Depends on how you define element, and how you write your claims.

I believe there are badly written patents with claims that would be infringed by a single computer but would not be be infringed by distributed system. There are probably even badly written patents with claims that would be infringed by a single *processor core* and would not be infringed by a *multi core* processor.

To illustrate, a computer can have a storage media containing algorithm1, algorithm2, algorithm3, ... algorithmN. The infringing product would comprise a computer element, with a storage containing programs representing the enumerated algorithms.

You've oversimplified. The infringing product actually depends on how the claims are written. Are the claims directed to the storage medium or the computer itself?

If the claim would recite an element for each algorithm, like "algorithm1 performer", "algorithm2 performer", wouldn't that imply that the claim cover only a device that have N computers? Would a device that have only one computer infringe such a claim?

I'm thrown by your use of the word "algorithm". I'm not sure if by algorithm you mean something more akin to "program" or if you mean something more like "step." For what it's worth, in most software patents the individual elements are more like functions/steps. Some folks view the combination of functions/steps as an algorithm. In some cases, thee functions/steps are packaged as a program.

I'm even more thrown by your use of the word "performer". Presumably you're using that as a generic term and you're not actually writing a claim that uses the word "performer."

But whether or not the claim is infringed by a single computer vs. a distributed system including multiple computers may depend greatly on exactly what word you *did* choose.

[khazzah]

Wow.  It's been a very long time since computers could perform no more than a single task at a time.  I'd bet that half of the posters here weren't alive when computers were so limited.

While I don't have hard and fast authority that this is the case, I believe most ordinary computer engineering artisans understand that a single computer can perform multiple algorithms.

Jim, I don't read OP's question as being about with multitasking, ie, whether the functions are run "at the same time" or not. And I don't read it as being about whether or not computers can be programmed to execute multiple functions, ie, whether a claim to a computer performing one function is infringed by a computer that performs an additional function.

I understand OP's question to be about how a claim distributes/partitions functionality among multiple computers, or about how a claim does not distribute the functionality, or about how the claim is agnostic and thus covers both. Though I do see that you addressed this angle too.

For what it's worth, I typically make it explicit that the tasks involved can be performed by a single computer or by multiple computers cooperating in a distributed manner.

Jim, I'm curious: do you rely solely on language in the spec to achieve this result? Or do you also use a specific claim format, ie, way of structuring your elements, to achieve this result?  [Hope I'm not asking you to give away your trade secrets :-) ]

[bakhus]

I mentioned the computer as an example of a single component that can be involved in several tasks. The more general question is if the claims should describe the logical elements, or the physical ones.

A computer can have an addition function, subtraction function, VoIP function, etc. The claim can have a corresponding adder, subtracter, VoIP mechanism, etc. Alternatively the claim can have a processor, and a storage comprising programs enabling the processor to perform addition, subtraction, and VoIP operations. The first device claim have three elements, the second one have two. The first describe the logical structure, and not the actual structure of the device, and so I am wondering if an infringer would be able to avoid being labeled as an infringer, by claiming that his device doesn't have an "adder", "subtracter", or "VoIP mechanism", but a processor and storage, that have programs on it.

The same question can be asked about other type of elements, like a controller element that can control several other elements, and the controller+element1 would serve one purpose and the controller+element2 would serve for an other purpose. To illustrate, suppose element1 set the sound level on the TV, and that the controller adjust that level automatically, and element2 may be an element that set the frequency of the TV reception, and controller+element2 automatically adjust the frequency of the TV in order to compensate for fluctuation in the base frequency. So the real elements are the controller, and the sound level knob, and the frequency knob. The logical elements are the uniform sound level adjuster, and the frequency shift correction adjuster.

[khazzah]

I mentioned the computer as an example of a single component that can be involved in several tasks. The more general question is if the claims should describe the logical elements, or the physical ones.

I'd say it depends on the technology area. The novelty of some inventions lies solely in physical structure.  The novelty of other inventions can be expressed at a more abstract level, in terms of function.

So the real elements are the controller, and the sound level knob, and the frequency knob. The logical elements are the uniform sound level adjuster, and the frequency shift correction adjuster.

You could claim it both ways. It's not a given that  there is one *right* way to claim something. 

Depending on the facts, the functional approach, ie, claiming "adjusters", may lead to 112P6. It all depends on how much structure a POSITA sees in "volume adjuster".

[ManOfManyBadIdeas]

I think there is some overlap between this question and an earlier thread on pulleys and cables (at least in my mind). When I was thinking about that situation, it occurred to me that claiming fewer cables in the device can be viewed as claim narrowing. I think this situation is similar, claiming fewer controllers in the system would narrow the claim. Consider this:

1. A device comprising:
   - pulley 1 and cable segment 1, wherein cable segment 1 is wrapped at least partially around pulley 1
   - pulley 2 and cable segment 2, wherein cable segment 2 is wrapped at least partially around pulley 2

2. A device recited in claim 2, wherein cable segment 1 and cable segment 2 are segments of the same cable.

I think same can be said about computer-algorithm functional relationship. If you want to claim algorithms/programs/steps, having them performed on the same computer would in my opinion be a narrower claim compared to having it performed on multiple computers. Adding a dependent claim would clarify this situation ("wherein at least two computers recited in claim X are to mean the same computer"?).

[bakhus]

ManOfManyBadIdeas example is an other way to phrase that i.e. Can two elements in a claim refer to a single physical element in the allegedly infringing device. The idea of an explanatory dependent claim referring to that situation make sense. Is it possible to mention in the specification that some claim elements may be implemented by a single physical element, and thus avoid writing such explanatory claims?

[JimIvey]

im, I don't read OP's question as being about with multitasking, ie, whether the functions are run "at the same time" or not.

Well here's where I got that notion:

If the claim would recite an element for each algorithm, like "algorithm1 performer", "algorithm2 performer", wouldn't that imply that the claim cover only a device that have N computers? Would a device that have only one computer infringe such a claim?

I only think that only makes sense if an ordinary computer scientist would assume that N algorithms would require N computers.  My point was that such is pretty clearly not the case today.

Jim, I'm curious: do you rely solely on language in the spec to achieve this result? Or do you also use a specific claim format, ie, way of structuring your elements, to achieve this result?  [Hope I'm not asking you to give away your trade secrets :-) ]

It's in some spec boilerplate that gets copied from application to application.  I believe it's in my definition for "logic" or named modules as all or part of one or more computer processes executing in one or more computer systems and/or digital logic collectively configured to cause the one or more computers to provide the functionality described herein.

I guess I rely primarily on the spec, but I use "logic" and/or "module" in the claim and I make it clear in the spec that the method can be performed by multiple computers in a distributed fashion.

Regards.

[khazzah]

Jim, I'm curious: do you rely solely on language in the spec to achieve this result? Or do you also use a specific claim format, ie, way of structuring your elements, to achieve this result? 

I guess I rely primarily on the spec, but I use "logic" and/or "module" in the claim and I make it clear in the spec that the method can be performed by multiple computers in a distributed fashion.

Gotcha. I'd say that's consistent with my practice.