Basic English grammar questions in claim drafting

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi,

Because English is my second language, I have many basic English grammar questions in claim drafting.

Here I list the first 2:

1. "one or more somethings" should be treated as a singular or plural phrase?

In one patent:
One or more cuts on the graph are then interleaved between replacements of the circuit design at a block 2310.

if one or more critical paths were pipelined already,

In another patent claim:
..., wherein said one or more internal stages is a plurality of pipeline stages and

2. Here a question comes with an uncountable noun logic:

a. When I first use "combinational logic", I use a combinational logic.

b. Later its reference will use the combinational logic.

c. The one or more combinational logic will be used in later appropriate time.

I am not sure if all forging expressions have English grammar error, because logic is an uncountable noun and it cannot have an article, either indefinite or definite : 'a' or "the".

Microsoft WORD doesn't show any grammar errors for them.

What should I do with them properly in claim drafting?

Thank you.

Weng

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi,

Here is an example showing what my question is.

Claim chain:

1 -- 2
   -- 3
   -- 4

Claim 1: A circuit, the circuit comprising:
...;
a first part of a control unit that ...

Claim 2: The circuit of claim 1 further comprising:
...;
a second part of the control unit that ...

Claim 3: The circuit of claim 1 further comprising:
...;
a third part of the control unit that ...

Claim 4: The circuit of claim 1 further comprising:
...;
a fourth part of the control unit that ...

Should I use different series number for claim 2 -- claim 4 as listed forgoing?

Or should I use the same a second part of the control unit?

Why I don't use different names? It is difficult to name 4 parts of a control unit using different names and each of their names appears only twice, or it may be a must?

Thank you.

Weng

[smgsmc]

1. "one or more somethings" should be treated as a singular or plural phrase?

In one patent:
One or more cuts on the graph are then interleaved between replacements of the circuit design at a block 2310.

if one or more critical paths were pipelined already,

In another patent claim:
..., wherein said one or more internal stages is a plurality of pipeline stages and

Actually, you need to back up a bit and debate whether you should write "one or more thing" or "one or more things".  This is an inherently mixed construction, because what is really meant is "one thing or more than one things".  If you use "one or more things", you can use either "one or more things is" or "one or more things are"; they are both equally correct (or equally flawed), in my opinion.   Personally, "one or more things are"  sounds better to me, because the plural "are" is paired with the plural "things".  One could similarly make a case for "one or more thing is", especially if you consider "one or more thing" to be a singular collective noun expression.

As a matter of personal preference, in most instances, I use "at least one thing" and "at least one thing is".


I'll leave your question on "logic" to someone else. 

[smgsmc]

Hi,

Here is an example showing what my question is.

Claim chain:

1 -- 2
   -- 3
   -- 4

Claim 1: A circuit, the circuit comprising:
...;
a first part of a control unit that ...

Claim 2: The circuit of claim 1 further comprising:
...;
a second part of the control unit that ...

Claim 3: The circuit of claim 1 further comprising:
...;
a third part of the control unit that ...

Claim 4: The circuit of claim 1 further comprising:
...;
a fourth part of the control unit that ...

Should I use different series number for claim 2 -- claim 4 as listed forgoing?

Or should I use the same a second part of the control unit?

Why I don't use different names? It is difficult to name 4 parts of a control unit using different names and each of their names appears only twice, or it may be a must?

Thank you.

Weng

Remember that a dependent claim is really just a shorthand method for avoiding writing all the elements of the independent claim again.
See what happens when you write your Claim 3 in full with your current language:

Claim 3.  A circuit, the circuit comprising:
...;
a first part of a control unit that ...

and

further comprising:
...;
a third part of the control unit that ...

Now you have a circuit with "a first part" and "a third part".  Gee, is there "a second part"?  Rather confusing, mysterious, and maybe indefinite.   So, I would use "a second part".

Note:  Using "a first part" in Claim 1, without a "second part" in Claim 1 appears to be OK.  I vaguely remember posting a question about it in this forum ~ 10 yrs ago when I first started out.  Over the years, I settled on a different format suggested by someone else.


1.  A circuit comprising ....
 
a part of a control unit ...

......


2.  The circuit of claim 1, wherein the part of the control unit is a first part of the control unit, further comprising:
a second part of the control unit ....

By the way, I don't know how your actual claim will read, but you might be better off introducing "a control unit" before introducing "parts of a control unit"; but that depends on your intent (whether or not you want to positively recite the entire control unit).

[mersenne]

I agree with smgsmc on the "one or more" vs. "at least one" point (I prefer "at least one" also).  Another thing to remember is that if you have two of something, then you also have one of that thing.  So you may be able to simplify by just saying "one."  You probably only need "at least one" if, later on, you need to talk about item #1 interacting with item #2.  (And in that case, maybe you need "at least two," instead of "at least one.")

I view claim construction like factoring classes in an object-oriented software problem -- you want to move data elements as far down the hierarchy as possible so that every class only deals with the minimum number of elements.  (Thus, the ultimate base class corresponds to the independent claim, and various derived classes are dependent claims.)

Once you have the "most-factored" version, you may decide to move some things toward the root because it helps the main claim make more sense, or it improves the English you have to use to describe it.

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi smgsmc,

Actually now you are teaching me English lessons!!!

If I had not asked, I would have never had a chance to learn the topics that are essential to claim drafting, each of explanations is very reasonable and easy to remember.

If you use "one or more things", you can use either "one or more things is" or "one or more things are"; they are both equally correct (or equally flawed), in my opinion.

So what I have asked seems to be a real problem which a junior attorney certainly faces, and is not a bad question as I was concerned when I was posting the problems!!!

I will follow all of your advises:

1. I will change all 144 appearances of "one or more things are" to "at least one thing is" in my next NPA and make it a custom forever in my claim drafting!!!

2.

Claim 3.  A circuit, the circuit comprising:
...;
a first part of a control unit that ...

and

further comprising:
...;
a third part of the control unit that ...

Now you have a circuit with "a first part" and "a third part".  Gee, is there "a second part"?  Rather confusing, mysterious, and maybe indefinite.   So, I would use "a second part".

With mersenne's participation into this topic, I suddenly remember that the one or more phrase had been discussed before in this website, and I forget it. Now with my posting and practice, the advice will be firmly remembered.

Thank you for your comments,both smgsmc and mersenne.

Weng

[Weng Tianxiang]

Here is an English sentence:

I am also not your lawyer nor providing legal advice.

I was taught that a normal expression forgoing should be as follows:

I am also neither your lawyer nor providing legal advice.

Are both correct?

Weng

[smgsmc]

Here is an English sentence:

I am also not your lawyer nor providing legal advice.

I was taught that a normal expression forgoing should be as follows:

I am also neither your lawyer nor providing legal advice.

Are both correct?

Weng

It's not an absolute rule, but "neither ... nor" works best with parallel constructions, such as

"I am neither your lawyer nor your doctor".

"I am providing neither legal advice nor medical advice".

So I would avoid the second construction.  The first construction is OK, but I would simply write:

"I am not your lawyer, and I am not providing legal advice."

[Weng Tianxiang]

designating one of the at least one output register as a ... if the index of the one of the at least one output register ...;

designating one of the at least one output register as a ... if the index of the output register ...;

I prefer the second. Is it indefinite?

Weng

[smgsmc]

designating one of the at least one output register as a ... if the index of the one of the at least one output register ...;

designating one of the at least one output register as a ... if the index of the output register ...;

I prefer the second. Is it indefinite?

Weng

This is similar to a question you previously posted.  If there is a one-to-one correspondence between the output register that is designated and the output register that has an index that satisfies a condition, then the first is fine.   The second is less clear, and it's possible that an Examiner would find it indefinite.  I would stick with the first.

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi smgsmc,

Thank you for your advice!

Quote from smgsmc:
I would stick with the first.

Weng

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi,

Is it a correct sentence or it can be improved:

a)   neither the circuit is allowed to output nor the FIFO is full;

What I want to express is:
1. The circuit is not allowed to output; and

2. The FIFO is not full.

Thank you.

Weng

[smgsmc]

Hi,

Is it a correct sentence or it can be improved:

a)   neither the circuit is allowed to output nor the FIFO is full;

What I want to express is:
1. The circuit is not allowed to output; and

2. The FIFO is not full.

Thank you.

Weng

a) is correct, but personally I prefer the direct

b)"The circuit is not allowed to output, and the FIFO is not full."


See how you had to ask yourself whether a) is correct or not; but the meaning of b) is apparent.

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi smgsmc,

I will follow your step without any hesitation!

verbally I have no ability to say sentence a), because it is very difficult for me to put neither and nor properly and b) is the natural choice.

In claim drafting I selected a) because of my misunderstanding that sentence b) cannot be used.

Here is another puzzle for me:

either of A and B = both of A and B?

one of A and B = any of A and B?

Text in red is my favorite.

Thank you.

Weng

[smgsmc]

Here is another puzzle for me:

either of A and B = both of A and B?

one of A and B = any of A and B?

Text in red is my favorite.

"Either of A and B" is incorrect; the correlative properly paired with "either" is "or".  Personally, I avoid "either" and "neither" in claims.


Be careful of what you intend with "one of A and B".  There was a court ruling (don't have it handy) that "one of A and B" --> "(one of A) AND (one of B)"; "one of A or B" --> "(one of A) OR (one of B)".  Note that it took a court to decide a point of grammar.  And the decision surprised many experienced practitioners.

My preference for better clarity in such instances is Markush group claiming.  In the past, we have discussed all these fine distinctions in extended threads.  I'll see if I can locate the most instructive one.