Print

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

[Bill Richards]

What's the latest thought/rule on using acronyms in the claims?  (Assuming properly defined in the Spec.)

[Isaac]

If I were going to use an acronym, I'd spell it out in the independent claims.  Example...

1. A collection of animals comprising:
a mangy flea bitten pooch (MFBP); and
a shiftless no account rat.

2.  The collection of animals of claim 1, wherein the MFBP is a hound dog.

[ram]

But, if we clearly define that MFBP is mangy flea bitten pooch in the specification, can't we simply use MFBP in the claims?

Thanks.

[Wiscagent]

"... if we clearly define that MFBP is mangy flea bitten pooch in the specification, can't we simply use MFBP in the claims?"

Yes.  But if MFBP also stands for Multiply Funded Business Plan (or something else that you are not aware of), it is likely that the examiner (or judge, or jury) will misunderstand the claim.  Do you want to make it easy for the examiner, or would you rather have an erroneous office action?

[ram]

I agree with you wiscagent.

But is it not like "the claim needs to be read in the light of the specification"

My question is  - How can an Examiner issue an objection just because he is not aware of a particular term present in the claim. Is he not supposed to read the description(s) for the term present in the claim?