0

Does the wording

...(accomplishing something) by, inclusively, either of 
   [option 1 description]; or
   [option 2 description]

(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements, with a change of "either of" to "any of")

serve the same purpose, with adequate clarity, as

...(accomplishing something by a means) selected from the group consisting of: 

       a) [option 1 description];
       b) [option 2 description];
       c) combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in 
          (a)-(b),  inclusive

(– and conceivably, extendable to any number of additional elements with corresponding lettered ordering)

  • 1
    Avoid the use of "means" unless you really know what it means and intend the precise meaning it has in patent law. – George White Feb 17 at 6:00
  • I am not actually using the word "means" in the final wording of the claims. But other than this point, do the overall construction of these two different wordings both accomplish the same thing? – Charles Feb 17 at 13:43
0

Either could work and either could be screwed up. From "accomplishing" I get that you are specifying actions or steps in a method claim but from "combinations of any elements comprising those set forth in (a)-(b)" it looks like we are talking about a thing, not an action.

"As set forth" seems odd and "inclusive" is used to indicate the endpoints of a range are part of the claimed range as in "cobalt and mixtures thereof and x, y, and z range from 0 to 8, inclusive); an aluminum transition metal". If (a) through (b) are individual actions or things it doesn't make sense to say inclusive.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.