Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Patent specification calls for strategically streamlined synonyms

Fore example, in the technical specification section of a patent, these rules, almost taken for granted, are to be obeyed at all times:

For- use

Wherein the claims section, one might say

said lever for actuating said valve

in the specification the same message, centered on use is to be written as

operator uses lever to open or close the valve

Novel- innovative

in the background section, the novel is fine, but in the specification section innovative is a must. The reason? Novel is abstract, in a colloquial, literary sense, while innovative implies an inventive direction, indicating that the invention is truly an innovation, and not a stretch of an idea that must be called novel. The same holds for non-obvious, which is an indirect way of saying new, and is better served by innovative.

consisting of , including, containing

consisting of , including, containing, are all fine in the technical description, but when it is required to stipulate that consisting of , including, containing exclusively A, B, C

it is to be reworded as comprising at least A, B and C

in all other instances the concepts can be modified using words such as exclusively, solely, directly

plurality is great for the claims section, but in the specification it is more than one

and so is multiplicity - which must be many, at least one

Experiments in past tense always, rest in present:

Never admit any prior art unless you are certain that it exists.

No comments: