Why 'a plurality of N' must be used for 'N' in patent claims

Discussion in 'VHDL' started by wtxwtx@gmail.com, Jan 1, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hi,
    Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
    patent claims?

    What is the difference between them?

    I found all patents I have checked if a number N (>0, or >1) is used,
    'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used.

    I checked with English disctionanry and still don't get any clue.

    Thank you.

    Weng
     
    , Jan 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Smith Guest

    writes:
    > Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
    > patent claims?


    Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
    documents. Legal documents are written using traditions that have
    evolved over hundreds of years. Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
    judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
    submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
    money.
     
    Eric Smith, Jan 3, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Baer Guest

    Eric Smith wrote:
    > writes:
    >
    >>Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
    >>patent claims?

    >
    >
    > Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
    > documents. Legal documents are written using traditions that have
    > evolved over hundreds of years. Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
    > judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
    > submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
    > money.

    Again, that is what i call "patent-ese".
    Instead of "many" or "multiple" one sees "a plurality of".
    Like i said, follow the terminology and useage that you find in other
    patents that are closely related to your particular idea.
     
    Robert Baer, Jan 3, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    Hi Robert,
    It is interesting to note that the styles for patent writing are
    changing with time.

    In old patents, 'said' was used for 'the'.

    Now I found in more patents approved in 2005, they only use 'the',
    never use 'said'.

    It is very often now that a full sentence usually follows the
    'wherein', instead of many separate words followed by descriptive
    words.

    Thank you.

    Weng
     
    , Jan 3, 2006
    #4
  5. Robert Baer wrote:

    > Eric Smith wrote:
    >
    >> writes:
    >>
    >>> Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
    >>> patent claims?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
    >> documents. Legal documents are written using traditions that have
    >> evolved over hundreds of years. Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
    >> judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
    >> submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
    >> money.

    >
    > Again, that is what i call "patent-ese".
    > Instead of "many" or "multiple" one sees "a plurality of".
    > Like i said, follow the terminology and useage that you find in other
    > patents that are closely related to your particular idea.


    Legalese is a very precise language, quite comparable to computer languages.
    If you ever see "...time is of the essence..." in a contract, prepare to run.

    --
    Dirk

    The Consensus:-
    The political party for the new millenium
    http://www.theconsensus.org
     
    Dirk Bruere at Neopax, Jan 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
    > Robert Baer wrote:
    >
    > > Eric Smith wrote:
    > >
    > >> writes:
    > >>
    > >>> Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
    > >>> patent claims?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
    > >> documents. Legal documents are written using traditions that have
    > >> evolved over hundreds of years. Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
    > >> judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
    > >> submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
    > >> money.

    > >
    > > Again, that is what i call "patent-ese".
    > > Instead of "many" or "multiple" one sees "a plurality of".
    > > Like i said, follow the terminology and useage that you find in other
    > > patents that are closely related to your particular idea.

    >
    > Legalese is a very precise language, quite comparable to computer languages.
    > If you ever see "...time is of the essence..." in a contract, prepare to run.


    Legalese is designed to keep lawyers employed. It is not, by itself,
    "precise". Contracts and other legal documents written in "plain
    English" are just as enforceable as the legalese version. Maybe even
    more so, because a jury (non-lawyers) can understand them.

    MOOYMMV.

    Tom Seim
     
    , Jan 4, 2006
    #6
  7. Symon Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Legalese is designed to keep lawyers employed. It is not, by itself,
    > "precise". Contracts and other legal documents written in "plain
    > English" are just as enforceable as the legalese version. Maybe even
    > more so, because a jury (non-lawyers) can understand them.
    >

    Hi Tom,
    So, on this one I disagree with you. Legalese exists because it has terms
    that have been defined to have a strict meaning in case law. It's not much
    different to the jargon used by electronics engineers which has a precise
    meaning. Contracts written in (say) "plain English" are enforceable, but
    with a lot more effort as there will be no precedent.
    IMO ;-)
    Cheers, Syms.
     
    Symon, Jan 4, 2006
    #7
  8. Robert Baer Guest

    wrote:

    > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
    >
    >>Robert Baer wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Eric Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
    >>>>>patent claims?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
    >>>>documents. Legal documents are written using traditions that have
    >>>>evolved over hundreds of years. Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
    >>>>judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
    >>>>submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
    >>>>money.
    >>>
    >>> Again, that is what i call "patent-ese".
    >>> Instead of "many" or "multiple" one sees "a plurality of".
    >>> Like i said, follow the terminology and useage that you find in other
    >>>patents that are closely related to your particular idea.

    >>
    >>Legalese is a very precise language, quite comparable to computer languages.
    >>If you ever see "...time is of the essence..." in a contract, prepare to run.

    >
    >
    > Legalese is designed to keep lawyers employed. It is not, by itself,
    > "precise". Contracts and other legal documents written in "plain
    > English" are just as enforceable as the legalese version. Maybe even
    > more so, because a jury (non-lawyers) can understand them.
    >
    > MOOYMMV.
    >
    > Tom Seim
    >

    Perhaps, but the question pertains to terminology in patents.
     
    Robert Baer, Jan 5, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    I once read about a (successful) lawsuit against a flying club. The
    issue was a liability waiver that used the phrase "bodily injury".
    Well, the poor guy was killed and his heirs argued in court that death
    was different from "bodily injury", and they won! In my mind death is
    just extreme bodily injury, but not, in this case, to the jury.

    Tom
     
    , Jan 9, 2006
    #9
  10. mk Guest

    On 9 Jan 2006 09:51:32 -0800, wrote:

    >I once read about a (successful) lawsuit against a flying club. The
    >issue was a liability waiver that used the phrase "bodily injury".
    >Well, the poor guy was killed and his heirs argued in court that death
    >was different from "bodily injury", and they won! In my mind death is
    >just extreme bodily injury, but not, in this case, to the jury.
    >
    >Tom


    I am with the jury on this one. You can argue that anything from
    scrapes to loss of both legs to full paralysis from the neck down are
    instances of "bodily injury" but in my opinion there is a difference
    of quality between "DEAD" and any of those things which are again, in
    my opinion, differences of degree.
     
    mk, Jan 9, 2006
    #10
  11. You are forgetting that, by the very nature of the beast, Patents are
    designed to be as general as possible without seeming to digress onto other
    topics... like this thread.

    Simon

    "Robert Baer" <> wrote in message
    news:UV1vf.1123$...
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
    > >
    > >>Robert Baer wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Eric Smith wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>> writes:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Why 'a plurality of N' or 'the plurality of N' must be used fo 'N' in
    > >>>>>patent claims?
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Because patents are written to be legal documents, not engineering
    > >>>>documents. Legal documents are written using traditions that have
    > >>>>evolved over hundreds of years. Since patent examiners, lawyers, and
    > >>>>judges all expect patents to be written in a certain way, if you
    > >>>>submit an application that isn't written that way, you're just wasting
    > >>>>money.
    > >>>
    > >>> Again, that is what i call "patent-ese".
    > >>> Instead of "many" or "multiple" one sees "a plurality of".
    > >>> Like i said, follow the terminology and useage that you find in other
    > >>>patents that are closely related to your particular idea.
    > >>
    > >>Legalese is a very precise language, quite comparable to computer

    languages.
    > >>If you ever see "...time is of the essence..." in a contract, prepare to

    run.
    > >
    > >
    > > Legalese is designed to keep lawyers employed. It is not, by itself,
    > > "precise". Contracts and other legal documents written in "plain
    > > English" are just as enforceable as the legalese version. Maybe even
    > > more so, because a jury (non-lawyers) can understand them.
    > >
    > > MOOYMMV.
    > >
    > > Tom Seim
    > >

    > Perhaps, but the question pertains to terminology in patents.
     
    Simon Peacock, Jan 11, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest


    > I am with the jury on this one.


    Which is exactly my point: this contract was reviewed by lawyers for
    accuracy and they felt that "bodily injury" includes death. So much for
    legal "precision".

    Tom
     
    , Jan 12, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Weng Tianxiang
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,472
  2. Sheila King
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    990
    Moderator, k12.ed.math
    Apr 22, 2005
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,261
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  4. NeoGeoSNK
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    974
    NeoGeoSNK
    Nov 24, 2006
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    943
    James Kanze
    Dec 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page