Print

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

[G8ZoST]

I've been using the "but not limited to", e.g. "including, but not limited to...", "for example, but not limited to...", "such as, but not limited to..." up to now. When translating an application into German, the dictionary just gave me the German equivalen of "for example" for "such as, but not limited to".

This got me thinking that, going by the ordinary meaning, terms such as "such as", "for example" etc. should be fine on their own, i.e. they plainly indicate that the following are non-final and that other elements may equally be used.

Is there any reason to use the dreadful to read "but not limited to"?

[klaviernista]

My rule is "only one qualifier per sentence."  "For example" and "such as" are qualifiers, as is "but not limited to."  Thus, I never combine "for example" and "but not limited to" in a single sentence.

If you are really paranoid, you can include boilerplate language explaining what you mean by "such as" or "for example," i.e., that they are intended to highlight only some embodiments of the invention, and are not limiting.

[JimIvey]

Is there any reason to use the dreadful to read "but not limited to"?

I don't use it.  It's redundant.

I have enough redundancy using "for example" in describing an illustrative embodiment.

Regards.