Print

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

[fb]

Does it hurt to use multiple different descriptors in the application title, which pertain to the different fields that the invention will be marketed in? For example:

Household circulation fan / Aircraft propulsion device

[Yak]

606 Title of Invention [R-5]

37 CFR 1.72 Title and abstract.

(a) The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible. Characters that cannot be captured and recorded in the Office's automated information systems may not be reflected in the Office's records in such systems or in documents created by the Office. Unless the title is supplied in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), the title of the invention should appear as a heading on the first page of the specification.

I think I would try to find a functional title that describes what the invention does instead of focusing on possible commercial uses. 

[khazzah]

Does it hurt to use multiple different descriptors in the application title, which pertain to the different fields that the invention will be marketed in?

As Yak points out, the requirements for a title are very loose. In my experience, it's rare for an Examiner to object to a title, and if he does, you just change the title to make him happy.

As for whether or not the title can "hurt" your patent in terms of claim scope, I researched the case law once and convinced myself the answer was No.

[JustAnotherExaminer]

Title and exemplary figure are mostly to help examiners in future searches.

[klaviernista]

As others have said, Titles can be pretty much anything.

Just don't make the mistake this practitioner did:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=GNIZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[JimIvey]

As others have said, Titles can be pretty much anything.

Just don't make the mistake this practitioner did:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=GNIZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Funny!  However, I don't think it was the practitioner's mistake (or at least the title as printed appears to be a heading for the background section).  The certificate of correction suggests it was an Office mistake.

Regards.