Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Author Topic: at least one  (Read 575 times)

dbmax

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
at least one
« on: 07-14-17 at 06:42 pm »

1a) a widget comprising at least one gadget, 
   said at least one gadget comprising two whatsits.


1b) a widget comprising at least one gadget,
   said gadget or gadgets comprising two whatsits.

   
Do both versions adequately claim the following two scenarios?
   a) widget has 1 gadget comprising 2 whatsits; or
   b) widget has 2 gadgets, each comprising one whatsit.


Both appear to be syntactically correct, but I'm wondering how a court would construct them.
Logged

MYK

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4012
    • View Profile
Re: at least one
« Reply #1 on: 07-14-17 at 11:25 pm »

Intrinsic and extrinsic evidence?

I'd be concerned about whether the whatsits are total per widget or total per gadget, i.e., widget has five gadgets, each gadget has two whatsits, so ten whatsits in the overall device.

You could add a limitation, "where the total number of whatsits is two".
Logged
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.

smgsmc

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
    • View Profile
Re: at least one
« Reply #2 on: 07-14-17 at 11:31 pm »

1a) a widget comprising at least one gadget, 
   said at least one gadget comprising two whatsits.


1b) a widget comprising at least one gadget,
   said gadget or gadgets comprising two whatsits.

   
Do both versions adequately claim the following two scenarios?
   a) widget has 1 gadget comprising 2 whatsits; or
   b) widget has 2 gadgets, each comprising one whatsit.


Both appear to be syntactically correct, but I'm wondering how a court would construct them.

This also reads on

c) widget has 2 gadgets, one gadget has no whatsit, second gadget has 2 whatsits
Logged

dbmax

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: at least one
« Reply #3 on: 07-18-17 at 02:32 am »

MYK and smgsmc,

Thanks for your comments. Assuming all claim terms are adequately defined in the spec, here's an improved claim.

1) A widget comprising at least one gadget,
   each said gadget comprising at least one whatsit, such that
   said widget comprises a first and a second said whatsit.

The final use of "said" is intended to require that each of the first and second whatsits is comprised by an antecedent gadget.
Logged

smgsmc

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2350
    • View Profile
Re: at least one
« Reply #4 on: 07-18-17 at 08:37 am »

MYK and smgsmc,

Thanks for your comments. Assuming all claim terms are adequately defined in the spec, here's an improved claim.

1) A widget comprising at least one gadget,
   each said gadget comprising at least one whatsit, such that
   said widget comprises a first and a second said whatsit.

The final use of "said" is intended to require that each of the first and second whatsits is comprised by an antecedent gadget.
Looks like technically it would cover the desired scenarios.  Personally though I don't care for claims in which I have to reverse engineer the claim to figure out what scenarios are and aren't covered.  How's this as an alternative?

A widget comprising:
  a gadget comprising two whatsits; or
  a first gadget comprising a first whatsit and a second gadget comprising a second whatsit.

Strictly as an independent claim, it's far more direct, and the meaning is far more transparent.  Don't know what you have in mind for dependent claims though.
« Last Edit: 07-18-17 at 08:41 am by smgsmc »
Logged

dbmax

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: at least one
« Reply #5 on: 07-19-17 at 08:27 am »

smgsmc,
Many thanks
Logged

Lopp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: at least one
« Reply #6 on: 07-20-17 at 02:13 am »

Also consider:

1. A widget comprising:
  at least two whatsits; and
  at least one gadget including at least one of the at least two whatsits.

2. The widget according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gadget comprises two of the at least two whatsits.

3. The widget according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gadget comprises:
 a first gadget comprising a first whatsit of the at least two whatsits; and
 a second gadget comprising a second whatsit of the at least two whatsits.

Even though "or" is now more acceptable that in the past, I am not a fan of it at least because an examiner only has to find one of the alternates to reject the claim.  Granted, in the above scenario, the examiner still only has to find one of the alternates.

Also, as you can see above, I am very anal about antecedent basis.
Logged
This post does not constitute legal advice.  Also, my participation on this forum does not create an attorney-client relationship.  Please contact a licensed practitioner if you have any legal questions.
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.162 seconds with 21 queries.