Print

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

[debugger]

I'm wondering how much specification is necessary/advisable when calling out off-the-shelf components used in a detailed description.

I'm writing an application for an invention that is mostly software. The software could programmed to run on a wintel, *unix, or other general purpose computer. It achieves a novel result through orchestrating automatic control of several existing hardware/software systems. Some of the controlled parts are in common use, others are unique.

Here's a completely hypothetical fragment from the detailed description:

The control program 1 runs on a general purpose computer system 2, which has an PCI interface card 3 such as the Framistan 9000, which controls switching of the Tyrell Corp residential force field generator 4, model THX-42, and a residential doorbell.    


tia

[Wiscagent]

Tia -

The standard is set out in 35 USC 112 paragraph 1, “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”

So if a person skilled in the art would understand your detailed description, then you’re okay.  Generally you are better off erring on the side of “full, clear, and exact” don’t worry so much about “concise.”

[Jonathan]

I agree with Richard. But you do bring up a good point in that one is not required to describe every possible detail of an invention.

MPEP 2164 states: Detailed procedures for making and using the invention may not be necessary if the description of the invention itself is sufficient to permit those skilled in the art to make and use the invention.

With that in mind, your proposed hypothetical fragment is good. I would modify it slightly to say 'component A is available from XYZ Corporation of City, State.'

[Isaac]

One caveat here is to beware of the best mode requirement.   In some cases you may have a heightened requirement to disclose a particular implementation.  

Usually for software based invention, the best mode requirement does not include having to disclose part numbers for components, but it doesn't hurt and may avoid a litigation issue.

[SoCalAttny]

I agree with the guy with 2793 posts.

I recently was reminded that it is better to list a description of the device and reference a part number, if you have one. Using this method also ensures that a lenghty description in the spec that describes the "off the shelf device" inner workings is not necessarily required.