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: "such as" vs. "such as, for example" in the specification  (Read 1167 times)

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: "such as" vs. "such as, for example" in the specification
« Reply #15 on: 11-22-11 at 01:11 pm »

Since 007 revived this thread....

I have actually wondered why no one has picked up on "can be" vs. "may be" in court.  I think examiners and courts give it a pass, under the "we know what she meant" rubric.  The only way it makes sense to me is that examiners and courts treat "may be" as "can be" even through they don't mean the same thing.

However, as someone who professionally drafts these things, I don't allow myself the "they'll know what I mean" escape from precise writing.  Some day, in some way, they won't know what I meant (or at least won't admit that they know what I meant).

I suspect people use "may be" rather than "can be" under the misunderstanding that "may be" is an older, more polite, and more lawyerly version of "can be".  Don't get me started on people over-lawyerizing their applications (with "said" rather than "the", "plurality", "multiplicity", "heretofore",  etc.).  Remember, ordinary artisans are not lawyers and live in the here and now, not in Victorian England.

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

NJ Patent1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
Re: "such as" vs. "such as, for example" in the specification
« Reply #16 on: 11-22-11 at 04:52 pm »

"Also, there is case law that says an applicant must describe what the invention is [not what it could/might be] not what the invention does. Using "may" may cast doubt on whether what is being said "is" the invention."

Well, that's the way I always looked at it.  My invention "might" be this or "might" be that, but I'm not going to tell you because I'm concerned that my claims might get limited.  But there is a clear "split of authority" on the may/can point in this thread.   Just have to wait for the CAFC case, but I doubt it'll ever come. 
Logged

NJ Patent1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
Re: "such as" vs. "such as, for example" in the specification
« Reply #17 on: 11-23-11 at 08:54 pm »

Let's lard it up:  The user interface may include commands such as, for purposes of providing example only, and without limitation to the foregoing or following...  Moreover, the forgoing notwithstanding, anything written here that could in any way, shape, or form be in any way shape or form construed as limiting the scope of the claims shall be null, void, and of no force or effect. Bald:, if ur are going to do it, go all the way man!   We need to collaborate and write a book titled, entitled, captioned. and hereinafter described as: "How to write Like a Tool"  :)
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 0.072 seconds with 17 queries.