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

[wtxwtx]

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

 

[Eric Smith]

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.

 

[Robert Baer]

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.

 

[wtxwtx]

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

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

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

 

[soar2morrow]

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

 

[Symon]

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.

 

[Robert Baer]

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.

 

[soar2morrow]

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

 

[mk]

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.

 

[Simon Peacock]

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

 

[soar2morrow]

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