"formed from" vs "formed of"

[jothya]

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.

[smgsmc]

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

[still_learnin]

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.

[lazyexaminer]

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.

[jothya]

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.