A little confused exactly when and where to use the word embodiment

[jhawk]

I am brand new to this forum, and am probably asking a very basic question answered somewhere else, but using the search for embodiment, I get a blank page. So I am going ahead and asking it here.

Can someone explain to me where you would use embodiment vs device/apparatus? I believe embodiment is intended to be an overall encompassing abstractive understanding of an application of the device/apparatus a person is getting a patent on.

For example, if you have several of the invented devices/apparatus in something, you would say the device/apparatus was inserted into the embodiment.
But is that correct?

[ThomasPaine]

"Can someone explain to me where you would use embodiment..."

Never.

[still_learnin]

"Can someone explain to me where you would use embodiment..."

Never.

I don't like using the term myself. But I've worked with many other attorneys insist on it.

FWIW, I understand "embodiment" to mean something like "implementation" or "variation."

In one embodiment/implementation/variation, the message is sent synchronously. In another embodiment/implementation/variation, the message is sent asynchronously.

I'm curious as to what people here see as the difference between the above above phrasing (using "embodiment"), and this phrasing that avoids "embodiment."

The message can be sent synchronously or asynchronously.

[ThomasPaine]

"I'm curious as to what people here see as the difference between the above above phrasing (using 'embodiment'), and this phrasing that avoids 'embodiment.'"

The above phrasing (using "embodiment") is just sh!tty writing.  It's sh!tty writing.  It's a whole bunch of words that don't need to be a whole bunch of words.  It's sh!tty writing.

But because it's a patent application, you have the contingent of "magic word" types who will tell you, "YOU HAVE TO WRITE IT LIKE THIS!!!!!!!" 

Those people are idiots.  Morons.  If you ask them why every single possible implementation or variation or example has to be described as an "embodiment" you'll get a bunch of hemming and hawing nonsense.  Or they'll cite some obscure case law that is as far off base as the ridiculous case law cites you get from examiners. 

Patent applications should be well written. Which means they shouldn't be a chore, and bore, to read.  Nobody wants to read "In yet another possible exemplary preferred embodiment of the present invention..." twenty f#cking times in a 9 or 10 page document.  But it's a lot of words.  So it makes the application longer.  And it makes it look like the drafter "did a lot of work." 

It's sh!t.  I see crap like that from OC constantly.  I redline the f#ck out of it.  And their 13 or 14 pages turns out to be 8 or 9 pages when you get rid of all the drivel and repetition and nonsense.

I had one OC who, when referring to an element of the system we were disclosing, would write, "In the exemplary preferred embodiment of the present invention schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, the doohickey 10 of the widget 20 of the gadget 30 of the system 40..."  And then every single time he referred to the "doohickey 10" he would tack on "of the widget 20 of the gadget 30 of the system 40" so the application would have 10, 20, maybe 30 references to "the doohickey 10 of the widget 20 of the gadget 30 of the system 40."  It was f#cking maddening.  I wanted to f#cking shoot him.  Thank goodness we fired his firm.

[jhawk]

Thanks for the replies!

With reference to the last reply regarding "the doohickey 10 of the widget 20 of the gadget 30 of the system 40", what is the acceptable method of addressing something like that throughout the application, where you want to make sure there isn't any confusion as to what the inventor is talking about.


Do you define the doohickey 10 of the widget 20 of the gadget 30 of the system 40 somewhere in the document with a keyword to reference it?

[NJ Patent1]

"I believe embodiment is intended to be an overall encompassing abstractive understanding of an application of the device/apparatus a person is getting a patent on."

This is basically my view.  One "invention" per patent, which invention might be "embodied" or realized in various ways. The challenge for me is drafting that one (or two) claim(s) that capture this.  I often use "embodiment" in written descriptions.  But I think your "for example" in the OP misconstrues or conflates this.  Your invented inventive device/apparatus is normally what one claims,  One can have different inventive combinations of inventive subcombinations, but you give each a different name in the WD. 

[ThomasPaine]

"With reference to the last reply regarding 'the doohickey 10 of the widget 20 of the gadget 30 of the system 40', what is the acceptable method of addressing something like that throughout the application..."

Just refer to "the doohickey 10."

If you have a piston ring 10 around a piston 20 in a cylinder 30 of an engine block 40 of an internal combustion engine 50 do you have to refer to "the piston ring 10 around the piston 20 in the cylinder 30 of the engine block 40 of the internal combustion engine 50" the next 5, 10, 20, 30 times you want to discuss the piston ring 10?  Or can you just write "the piston ring 10"?

[JV]

"I believe embodiment is intended to be an overall encompassing abstractive understanding of an application of the device/apparatus a person is getting a patent on."

This is basically my view.  One "invention" per patent, which invention might be "embodied" or realized in various ways. The challenge for me is drafting that one (or two) claim(s) that capture this.  I often use "embodiment" in written descriptions.  But I think your "for example" in the OP misconstrues or conflates this.  Your invented inventive device/apparatus is normally what one claims,  One can have different inventive combinations of inventive subcombinations, but you give each a different name in the WD.

I agree with NJPatent1, and I'm a little surprised to hear the hostility towards using the term "embodiment" in the written description.  Maybe it depends on the technology area - I practice in the mechanical field, so there are typically lots of figures.  I want to make it absolutely clear that the invention is NOT what I've got shown in the figures, and what I'm describing with reference to the figures.  What is shown in the figures is nothing more than a possible embodiment of the invention, and that is how I refer to it.