What is the difference betwee 'Method' and 'Apparatus' in a

Hi,
I read patent 6,914,453 by IBM and trying to follow the paper's claim
pattern to write my claims.

The next question is:
What is the difference between Method and Apparatus in a patent claim
area?

The interesting thing happens with the claims:
The patent repeats all sentences in claims for Method with a few
changes to make up claims for Apparatus.

I will follow their patterns, but I really don't realize why to do them
repeatedly?

Any patent precedents that if not repeated, a very serious consequences
would follow?

Thank you.

Weng

 

wtxwtx@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,
I read patent 6,914,453 by IBM and trying to follow the paper's claim
pattern to write my claims.

The next question is:
What is the difference between Method and Apparatus in a patent claim
area?

The interesting thing happens with the claims:
The patent repeats all sentences in claims for Method with a few
changes to make up claims for Apparatus.

I will follow their patterns, but I really don't realize why to do them
repeatedly?

Any patent precedents that if not repeated, a very serious consequences
would follow?

Thank you.

Weng

The Apparatus claims cover the device itself: its component parts and
their physical arrangement.

The Method claims cover the way in which the gadget operates, the
process performed by the parts.

Regards,
James Arthur (Disclaimer: IANAL)

 

[Robert Baer]

wtxwtx@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,
I read patent 6,914,453 by IBM and trying to follow the paper's claim
pattern to write my claims.

The next question is:
What is the difference between Method and Apparatus in a patent claim
area?

The interesting thing happens with the claims:
The patent repeats all sentences in claims for Method with a few
changes to make up claims for Apparatus.

I will follow their patterns, but I really don't realize why to do them
repeatedly?

Any patent precedents that if not repeated, a very serious consequences
would follow?

Thank you.

Weng

Read at least a dozen different patents, pick those that "closely"

relate to what you are doing.
Note that there are two kinds of claims, independent and dependent.
The first claim is the most important and is always an independent claim.
Usually, but not always, the second claim is a dependent claim and
will be worded like "...of claim 1" or such, some aspect being a little
different than that described in claim one.
Crafting claims is an art.
You must describe the novel item so others "skilled in the art" can
reproduce it.
That does not mean that what they produce will work as well as what
you invented, and/or that they *understand* or *believe* what you said.
Also, if the device is completely novel (such as the transistor first
patented in the US by Lillienfeld in the late 1920s), it is not required
that a correct theory be described - a wild guess will do.
And....even as a "small entity" it is expensive.
If the claims are crafted properly, few if any will raise an
objection (does not correctly fit the legal requirements) and a good
patent lawyer can "argue" (ie: give good legal reasons) that the wording
is OK as-is.
Furthermore, the time in process will be "short" - less than 2 years.
The claims should cover all possible aspects that can be legally
covered; some claims being rather specific and others as general as
possible, looking at the item upside-down, sideways, backwards,
inside-out, and crazy-blue-sky if one can.
If you invent the paper clip and describe only its holding
capabilities, you lose the sales and profits of its use as a slingshot.

 

Hi Robert,
Thank you for your excellent advice.

Here are you key points:
1. Read at least a dozen "closely" relate patents;
2. You must describe the novel items;
3. The claims should cover all possible aspects that can be legally
covered.

I think this is inventor's responsibility:
looking at the item upside-down, sideways, backwards, inside-out, and
crazy-blue-sky if one can.
The example of paper clip doesn't exist for eletronical circuits.

For eletronical circuit, the inventor must have to think a lot about
any possible designs around patents that any lawyers couldn't do it.
Block them or invent them together.

I don't understand the following statement:
even as a "small entity" it is expensive.

Thank you.

Weng

 

[Robert Baer]

wtxwtx@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Robert,
Thank you for your excellent advice.

Here are you key points:
1. Read at least a dozen "closely" relate patents;
2. You must describe the novel items;
3. The claims should cover all possible aspects that can be legally
covered.

I think this is inventor's responsibility:
looking at the item upside-down, sideways, backwards, inside-out, and
crazy-blue-sky if one can.
The example of paper clip doesn't exist for eletronical circuits.

For eletronical circuit, the inventor must have to think a lot about
any possible designs around patents that any lawyers couldn't do it.
Block them or invent them together.

I don't understand the following statement:
even as a "small entity" it is expensive.

Thank you.

Weng

The paper clip example was just an example and not intended to relate

to chemical patents, boilogical patents, electronic patents or any
specific type or class of patents.
It was intended to only show that some un-thought-of aspect can be
missed.
Look at the charges; a "small entity" pays thousands of dollars -
especially when one adds in the maintenance fees.
Patents are as good and as bad as a copyright.
All they do is give the holder incontestable proof that they are the
owner, period.
The size of the owner's wallet is more important when court action is
deemed necessary.
Only the rich win.
See what Don Lancaster has to say about patents.
Now you can do all of the research, write the the patent including
well-crafted claime, and then post it on the web thereby putting it into
the public domain.
That means that any art derived from the patent is mostly PD itself,
unless something "novel" is added - and only *that something* could be
patented by that inventer.
If your patent is something relatively fundamental (maser) then all
new art based on that patent would theoretically be PD (if i understand
the general drift of patent law correctly).
I have written up a few patents and put them on the web.
A hell of a lot cheaper and my wallet does not have to be invaded in
defending poachers.

 

Hi Robert,
I checked USPTO and found you hold 5 patents.

I like to listen to your advices, experiences and lessons all ears.

Several things for me to file patents are:
1. The circuits must be novel, and it will be applied in the industry
without doubt.

For example, they must be dramatic advantages over current ones in one
of following respects: speed, performance, saving power or saving
logic.

2. The 'novel' circuit must have potential buyers to make money.

3. History will keep your invention as a record and the circuit can go
into textbooks.

But basically, making money is the most important factor to file a
patent.

Weng

 

Hi,
I am following patent 6,914,453 by IBM to write claims.

I would like to ask another question:
What is the difference between 'providing' and 'applying' in
a patent claim area for electronic circuit?

In the above patent, it writes:
1. A method ...
providing a clock input to the logic circuits;
providing one or more static signal inputs to the logic circuit; <--
generating one or more dynamic signal inputs ...
applying the one or more dynamic signal input to the circuit;
....
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of
applying one or more static signal inputs to the logic circuit.

From the above descriptions, I am confused about why claim 4
repeats a step that has already been described, but insead of

using 'providing', it uses 'applying' this time.

Thank you.

Weng

 

[Robert Baer]

wtxwtx@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Robert,
I checked USPTO and found you hold 5 patents.

I like to listen to your advices, experiences and lessons all ears.

Several things for me to file patents are:
1. The circuits must be novel, and it will be applied in the industry
without doubt.

For example, they must be dramatic advantages over current ones in one
of following respects: speed, performance, saving power or saving
logic.

2. The 'novel' circuit must have potential buyers to make money.

3. History will keep your invention as a record and the circuit can go
into textbooks.

But basically, making money is the most important factor to file a
patent.

Weng

Well, *dramatic* advantages are not really necessary; making the

device more useable or practical is sufficient.
Check my website oil4lessllc.com and look at the Mosley patent and
then at the two i put into PD as an example.
If one wants to be nasty, the item patented does not have to be
practical, does not have to be buildable by ordinary means.
Hell, i have seen numerous patents on things that were obvious to
even those *not* skilled in the particular art (ie: legally speaking the
patent should not have been awarded).
And i have seen patents that were almost exact copies of one another
(up to three!).
One patent i saw was intriguing; it purported to be a patent on a
plastic coated bike sprocket, but really was a chemical patent "hiding"
in a different classification.
Do your own patent search for background and interference (of idea);
patent lawyers are very expensive and if the one chosen lacks a
background in the field of art that your idea covers, then their search
will not be as wide or deep as needed.
The Patent Clearing house in Sunnyvale CA is the best in the nation -
mainly because they have *all* of the cross reference material that is
available.
If and when you do go for a patent lawyer, make sure that they do
have the relevant background (5 years or more).
And have the whole patent written up; even format it the same way as
required for submittal.
Have those you trust go over wording of the claims, suggest added
ones, check spelling, etc.
If there is a term commonly used in similar patents but is not
standard english, use the "patent-ese" not English.
For example, in the pump patent, note the term "depending" is used,
where English would use "descending".

 

[Robert Baer]

wtxwtx@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,
I am following patent 6,914,453 by IBM to write claims.

I would like to ask another question:
What is the difference between 'providing' and 'applying' in
a patent claim area for electronic circuit?

In the above patent, it writes:
1. A method ...
providing a clock input to the logic circuits;
providing one or more static signal inputs to the logic circuit; <--
generating one or more dynamic signal inputs ...
applying the one or more dynamic signal input to the circuit;
...
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of
applying one or more static signal inputs to the logic circuit.

From the above descriptions, I am confused about why claim 4
repeats a step that has already been described, but insead of
using 'providing', it uses 'applying' this time.

Thank you.

Weng

If you look closely at claim #1, note the use of providing,

generating, applying, precharging, evaluating, holding, and converting
are all used (listed in order of occurrence).
In #4, "applying" would appear to mean that an external signal is
used (applied).
In #1, "providing" appears to be a modifier of the action "step".
I ain't no engrish hexpert, nor familiar with "patentese" related to
logic circuits, so i could be very wrong in those assessments.
Look at at least a dozen patents direcly related to the field of
interest - and keep an eye out for similar or identical constructs like
those you mentioned.
That is how i discovered that "depending" was patentese for the
engrish term "descending".

 

[Keith]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:06:47 -0800, wtxwtx wrote:

Hi Robert,
I checked USPTO and found you hold 5 patents.

I like to listen to your advices, experiences and lessons all ears.

Several things for me to file patents are:
1. The circuits must be novel, and it will be applied in the industry
without doubt.

For example, they must be dramatic advantages over current ones in one
of following respects: speed, performance, saving power or saving
logic.

No, they don't have to show anything "dramatic" at all. A patent only has
to show uniqueness and workability.

2. The 'novel' circuit must have potential buyers to make money.

Making mony is irrelevant to a patent, though since one has to pay money
to get a patent, it's a good idea.

3. History will keep your invention as a record and the circuit can go
into textbooks.

History? Publication will prevent (in an honest world) someone else from
patenting your idea. You'll still need a lawyer and a pile of money if
someone else does patent your idea.

But basically, making money is the most important factor to file a
patent.

There are many reasons to file a patent. Making money is only one.

--
Keith

 

Hi Robert,
Thank you for your good advice.

Weng