Print

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

[eptlaw]

I have a question for the more experienced patent attorneys regarding the semantics of claiming an element that may exist one or multiple times in an invention:

If, in claim one, I have recited; "at least one widget" as an element of the invention, is it proper to use the phrase; "...wherein the at least one widget..." as I continue describing the invention?  Or is there a more proper way of phrasing this concept?

Thanks

[Isaac]

Unfortunately, if you recite "at least one widget", you probably are going to have to use "the at least one widget".  Although it sounds awkward, it does work.

But generally claims reciting "a widget" are infringed by a defendant's device that has multiple widgets.  I'd make sure that simply using "a widget" doesn't work before resorting to using "at least one widget"

[eptlaw]

Thanks for the info. 

[DJoshEsq]

why not just claim "a widget" or "a first widget" "a" means one or more.

[pentazole]

I agree with DJoshEsq.  I avoid using terms like "at least".  Usually in my claims I don't use plurals, and only use "a", "an", and "the".  However, if you do feel the need to use "at least", or any term for that matter, you should carry it through for consistency.  Think of it this way...  when you say "at least one widget", you no longer mean "widget" of which there is "at least one", you actually mean "at least one widget".  So this "widget" is no longer just a widget, it's now of the type "at least one widget".  Anywhere you want to refer to this "widget", you should be referring to it by its proper type, which is "at least one widget".

This may sound obscure, but let me elaborate.

Let's say I claim "A polyurethane polymer to be used in foaming applications", which I normally wouldn't do, but let's just say...  I will no longer refer to it as the "polyurethane", it has now become the "polyurethane polymer to be used in foaming applications". 

Even though it may sound verbose, redundant, and/or unnecessary, it can never sound ambiguous.  They will always know which widget you refer to, or which polymer I refer to.