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: "formed from" vs "formed of"  (Read 684 times)

jothya

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
    • View Profile
"formed from" vs "formed of"
« on: 12-07-17 at 10:46 am »

I did a search, but didn't find anything - I do apologize if this topic has been discussed before.

Curious to hear the group opinions/interpretations of whether "formed from" and "formed of" have different meanings or scope? 

E.g., A faceplate formed from/formed of material X.

Thanks and hope all are having a happy holiday season.
Logged

smgsmc

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494
    • View Profile
Re: "formed from" vs "formed of"
« Reply #1 on: 12-13-17 at 03:26 pm »

Depending on the rest of your claim, you could consider something along the lines of:

A faceplate comprised of material X

or

A faceplate comprising material X
Logged

still_learnin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
    • View Profile
Re: "formed from" vs "formed of"
« Reply #2 on: 12-13-17 at 05:18 pm »

Caveat: Materials aren't very important in the technology areas I deal with, so I may be way off base here.

My understanding is that "comprising" has exactly the same meaning as "including," except that (for historical reasons?) the former is preferred usage in patent claims. Isn't there a difference in meaning between a part formed of a material, and a part including a material? The latter just sounds off to me.
« Last Edit: 12-13-17 at 06:53 pm by still_learnin »
Logged
The above is not legal advice, and my participation in discussions on this forum does not create an attorney-client relationship.

lazyexaminer

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: "formed from" vs "formed of"
« Reply #3 on: 12-13-17 at 06:05 pm »

Caveat: Materials aren't very important in the technology areas I deal with, so I may be way off base here.

My understanding is that "comprising" has exactly the same meaning as "including," except that (for historical reasons?) the former is preferred usage in patent claims. So isn't there a difference in meaning, then, between a part formed of a material, and a part including a material? The latter just sounds off to me.

Interesting thought, makes sense intuitively but I don't know about in patent terms.

I do feel that "formed from" is more getting at what it actually is, almost like consisting of. I feel that I wouldn't say that something bronze is "formed from copper" but I'd have no problem saying it comprises copper.

Again, this is just kind of gut feeling and I am not clear to what extent it matters in a patent drafting sense. If you are set on "formed" I don't think "from" or "of" really changes anything.
Logged
I'm not your examiner, I'm not your lawyer, and I'm speaking only for myself, not for the USPTO.

jothya

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
    • View Profile
Re: "formed from" vs "formed of"
« Reply #4 on: 12-17-17 at 11:21 am »

As always, everyone's input is appreciated. 

I don't typically use "formed from/of" in a claim.  I was thinking more along the lines of any limiting interpretation from the specification, for example, during litigation.  However, in view of the comments, just saying that item A includes B, instead of saying item A is formed from/of B may just be a better practice in general. 
Logged
 



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 0.105 seconds with 20 queries.