Print

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

[properlanguage]

Is it proper to use means for in a method claim? If I wanted to claim a method for mouting a painting and I wanted to include all the ways it can contact a wall, nail directly through, hanging, tape, velcro.

[HowBout]

How about:

1. A method comprising mounting a display to a surface.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein mounting a display to a surface comprises using a connecting element to mount a display to a surface.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein using a connecting element comprises using a nail, a screw, a rivet, tape, glue, or hook-and-loop fabric.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein using a connecting element comprises using velcro.

OK ... you're right ... I didn't answer your question. I thought I would exploit your inquiry to stand on my soap box and promulgate my own preferential style in specifying structural elements within method claims. I just don't like "means for." I don't like 35 U.S.C. 112 (6th paragraph). It's meaning is contested among my many bosses.

But back to your question, the answer is ... yes ... according to said paragraph.

[HowBout]

Oops!
I meant "Its meaning is contested ..."

But did I mention? ... Winston Churchill told me I can use apostrophes in any fashion I like ... just in case any wallflowers are watching.