Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Author Topic: gadget comprising the widget of claim 1  (Read 279 times)

dbmax

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
gadget comprising the widget of claim 1
« on: 11-10-17 at 02:46 pm »

1) A widget for use on a gadget, said widget comprising
   x; and
   y.

20) A gadget comprising a widget according to claim 1.

The gadget is not shown in the drawings.
The gadget is not discussed in the spec, except as to how the widget would typically be fitted to it.
Gadgets and widgets, and the fitting of one to the other, are common within the art, and well understood by a phosita.

Is there a problem with claim 20?
Logged

smgsmc

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
    • View Profile
Re: gadget comprising the widget of claim 1
« Reply #1 on: 11-10-17 at 05:16 pm »

I see a 112 indefiniteness issue because you recite "a gadget" in claim 1, then claim "a gadget" in claim 20.  Is "for use on a gadget" necessary in claim 1, or can you omit it?  That is, does "gadget" appear in the body of claim 1, or is the preamble solely intended use and not afforded patentable weight anyways?
« Last Edit: 11-10-17 at 05:21 pm by smgsmc »
Logged

dbmax

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: gadget comprising the widget of claim 1
« Reply #2 on: 11-10-17 at 07:06 pm »

That is, does "gadget" appear in the body of claim 1, or is the preamble solely intended use and not afforded patentable weight anyways?

Only a court can answer that question, but my answer is that the gadget in claim 1 is solely a part of the preamble, and can be omitted.

But since it (presumably) has no patentable weight, is it necessary to omit it from claim 1?

Thanks,
bd
Logged

smgsmc

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2371
    • View Profile
Re: gadget comprising the widget of claim 1
« Reply #3 on: 11-10-17 at 07:32 pm »

That is, does "gadget" appear in the body of claim 1, or is the preamble solely intended use and not afforded patentable weight anyways?

Only a court can answer that question, but my answer is that the gadget in claim 1 is solely a part of the preamble, and can be omitted.

But since it (presumably) has no patentable weight, is it necessary to omit it from claim 1?

Thanks,
bd
If you don't omit it from claim 1, you will have the 112 indefiniteness issue I mentioned above.  If "gadget" in claim 1 is unnecessary and you omit it, that issue goes away.

As written:

1) A widget for use on a gadget, said widget comprising
   x; and
   y.

20) A gadget comprising a widget according to claim 1.

20) expanded reads:

A gadget comprising a widget for use on a gadget ....

That won't fly.


ETA:  We've also gone round the block a few times as to whether 20) is a proper dependent claim, even if you fix it up.
« Last Edit: 11-10-17 at 07:43 pm by smgsmc »
Logged

dbmax

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
Re: gadget comprising the widget of claim 1
« Reply #4 on: 11-13-17 at 10:53 pm »

ETA:  We've also gone round the block a few times as to whether 20) is a proper dependent claim, even if you fix it up.

Seemed to remember a discussion like that  but couldn't find it until now.  Thanks.   http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,29693.msg139741.html#msg139741

I'm guessing a cleaned up claim would fly. Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,503 F. 3d 1352 -CAFC 2007 suggests that the "form" of the dependent claim is not important so long as the claim meets two criteria, and that the word "then" in 112(d) does not literally mean "then."  (dunno about scotus)

Regards,
bd
« Last Edit: 11-15-17 at 12:29 pm by dbmax »
Logged
 



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 0.104 seconds with 20 queries.