Print

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

[patpro23]

Can anyone explain the difference (if there is one) between an apparatus and a device when drafting a new patent application.
Are these two terms interchangable or do they actually mean different things?

[JimIvey]

My understanding is that "apparatus" and "machine" mean that the thing has moving parts.  Cf. "article" which is just a thing.

I don't think "device" has any special meaning in claims. 

If you're thinking of what to put in the preamble of a claim, I'm not sure it matters.  You can probably claim "a thing comprising:", though most like to at least hint as to which 101 category into which the claim would fit.

Regards.

[JustAnotherExaminer]

Can anyone explain the difference (if there is one) between an apparatus and a device when drafting a new patent application.
Are these two terms interchangable or do they actually mean different things?

For the claim it doesn't matter, because you're defining what the "apparatus", "device", "<insert any word>" is by what it comprises.

And if I find all the things that "<insert any word>" comprises, I've found an "<insert any word>".

If you claim:
A flying trapeze comprising:
an outboard motor.

And I find a boat comprising an outboard motor, I've found your claimed flying trapeze.

[khazzah]

Can anyone explain the difference (if there is one) between an apparatus and a device when drafting a new patent application.
Are these two terms interchangable or do they actually mean different things?

For the claim it doesn't matter, because you're defining what the "apparatus", "device", "<insert any word>" is by what it comprises.

JustAnEx has explained how it works in prosecution. But claim drafters think about infringement too.

My general advice to the forum would be to think carefully about every word in the claim, even in the preamble. Because you better believe that an accused infringer will do that, both to avoid infringement and to invalidate your patent.

For your particular question -- apparatus vs device -- I can't think of a good argument that an accused infringer could use to avoid infringement based on which of those two words you choose. Though I do agree with Jim's distinction between system and device/apparatus.

[Yak]

As I relative newby to the practice of IP law, I have found this forum an invaluable asset.  There is very little mentorship or broad-scoped experience at the firm where I work and I am always trying to self-mentor through books, blogs, forums, etc.  So initially, thank you all for the wonderful knowledge and perspective you provide on a daily basis. 

Speaking of books to assist one become a better practitioner, I recently read a post discussing 2 books from the Oxford University Press which were recommended by the blogger.  They are:
1) Rules of Patent Drafting Guidelines from Federal Circuit Case Law by Joseph E. Root
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/IntellectualProperty/IntellectualProperty/?view=usa&ci=9780199734924
2) Thesaurus of Claim Construction by Robert C. Kahrl and Stuart B. Soffer
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/?view=usa&ci=9780199737116

The books are fairly expensive, but I would make the investment if they were worth the money.  Does anyone have any opinion or review of either or both as a tool for a still learning patent attorney?

[khazzah]

Patently reviewed the Thesaurus here: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/04/the-thesaurus-of-claim-construction.html. And I found this comment to be insightful:

This work sounds like a useful compilation if we understand and recognise what it is. It appears to be a compilation of constructions given to particular words in particular contexts on particular evidence and arguments. ...

Factual findings are of no precedental value, and a particular construction is inextricably tied to the fact matrix in which the construction was arrived at. So a potentially very useful book, a handy reference for students and a good starting point for developing arguments. But don't go citing it in court.

BTW, if you're looking for a cheaper - read "free" -- alternative, consider PUBPAT's downloadable Claim Construction Dictionary, link here: http://www.pubpat.org/garrod-glossaries.htm

[Yak]

Cool, thanks.