Print

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

[Patentstudent]

I have a question.

Let's presume that I want to draft a patent application for an apparatus which has a shaft with a flange welded on that shaft at the top of the apparatus. Instead of the flange it is also possible to have a sphere, a cube or some other spacious element welded on the shaft. In all cases the dimensions of that element are bigger than the diameter of the shaft, so it has some resemblance with the combination of the stem and the cap of a mushroom.   
Can I describe/define all the different embodiments of this part of the apparatus as a 'mushroom' shaped item and further refer to it as the 'mushroom' in the description and in the claims?

Thank you in advance for your comments.   

[JimIvey]

I don't think the cube or the sphere would look mushroom-esque.  My preference would be to give it a functional generic name (like shaft cap, if that's what you're going for) rather than something that relates to its appearance, particularly if the appearance can vary widely.

Regards.

[Patentstudent]

Thank you, Jim.

[khazzah]

In all cases the dimensions of that element are bigger than the diameter of the shaft, so it has some resemblance with the combination of the stem and the cap of a mushroom.   
Can I describe/define all the different embodiments of this part of the apparatus as a 'mushroom' shaped item ?

I ran across a couple of BPAI decisions where the Applicant got burned by doing something close to what you're talking about: 

http://allthingspros.blogspot.com/2010/09/indefiniteness-claims-inconsistent-spec.html

These two cases involve shapes where the Applicant picked the wrong word to describe the shape (wrong in the BPAI's view), resulting in a 112 1st indefiniteness rejection.
 

[Patentstudent]

Karen, that is a clear example, where indeed the applicant did something close to what I mentioned. Based on your information and Jim's reply I will never even consider anymore to do something like that.

[Ghoti]

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

To clarify my understanding, those cases were directed to situations where the claim used words that were not used in the description and that this is the fundamental problem. I can see how using inaccurate shape terms might result in other problems, but the specific problem in the cases discussed was the use of new shape terms that were not considered supported by the speci (as the shape term was not 100% congruent with the description/drawings)?

[khazzah]

To clarify my understanding, those cases were directed to situations where the claim used words that were not used in the description and that this is the fundamental problem ...

Not exactly.

Both Ex parte Sazy and Ex parte Sabbagh involve claim terms ("banana shaped" and "kidney shaped") that appeared in the originally filed spec.

In both cases, the Board found that the meaning of the shape term was inconsistent with the originally filed drawing, and the Board used that inconsistency to find the claims indefinite. The Board relied on In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971), characterizing the holding as "sustaining rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, where the claims were inherently inconsistent with the description, definitions, and examples appearing in applicant’s specification".

[Ghoti]

Thanks very much for the clarification.