Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum software has been upgraded.  New registrations are not currently permitted while we iron out any bugs and other matters.  Please report any problems you find.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Examiner's interpretation of "proximate" and "approximately adjacent"  (Read 3454 times)

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)

My read FWIW is that "proximate" is itself meaningless unless defined.   

I've used "proximal" and "distal" to refer to near and far ends, respectively, of an element.  However, I use those as labels, like "first" and "second", or define them carefully.  But I think in that one context, "proximate" or "proximal" is not inherently vague.

Otherwise, yeah, it's not very precise.

Regards.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.

ChrisWhewell

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Searches, spec writing, prosecution & other deeds.
    • Email

I'd have to check, but off the top of my head, when I've used one I'd also had the other present.   Ponder using either "proximal" or "distal" without the other, or without reference to "what" ; could be problematic.
Logged
Chris Whewell
www.mypatentagent.com
Notice:   NOTHING IN THIS MESSAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  No representations or warranties are made with respect to any of the information contained in this message, and particularly in reference to its accuracy or suitability for any purpose.

Isaac

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
    • View Profile

I'm not sure I would give a 112 2nd for all uses of "adjacent" since that means the two objects are next to each other, which means to me, that there is nothing else in between.  However, I would consider a 112 2nd, should the claim say that a feature is adjacent to an end of an object.

It's "approximately adjacent" that I find problematic.
Logged
Isaac

ChrisWhewell

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Searches, spec writing, prosecution & other deeds.
    • Email

It's "approximately adjacent" that I find problematic.

Haven't given it much thought but a first-pass test might be to try the converse, viz, "approximately non-adjacent" and see if it has meaning within the meaning of the spec.   If "approximately adjacent" cannot be discerned from "approximately non-adjacent", then the gates of doom may be open.    Else,  "non-approximately adjacent", but that one gives my pencil goose bumps.
Logged
Chris Whewell
www.mypatentagent.com
Notice:   NOTHING IN THIS MESSAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  No representations or warranties are made with respect to any of the information contained in this message, and particularly in reference to its accuracy or suitability for any purpose.

ParadiseIP

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile

I have to agree with the Examiner on this one.  The only way to determine a length scale in this example is with reference to the elongated element.  Thus, it seems perfectly reasonable to interpret the term "proximate" as implying that something is within a distance from the elongated element that is not significantly larger than the length scale defined by the elongated element.

I think I would follow Jim's line of thought and look for some reason that moving the feature from the middle to the end of the elongated element makes a big difference.  You will have to do this to avoid an obviousness rejection in any event.
Logged

Ghoti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile

towards the first end?
at the first end region?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.109 seconds with 17 queries.