Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
"Figs 1A to 1D show various aspects of a closure supplied with...with paper in accordance with one embodiment"
"Fig 2 shows a ...on one side only in accordance with another embodiment"
"Fig 3 shows a ...in accordance with another embodiment"
Why not to be more specific regarding which particular embodiment the figure relates to?
How to use this phrase correctly?
Patents are generally written to be as broad as possible, and if you tie it to a single embodiment... that would defeat the purpose.
So how should I describe legally, two different figures that relate to the same embodiment?
It seems to me and I might be wrong that if I use "in accordance with another embodiment" for both, it states that the two figures do not relate to the same embodiment.
I think that I found what I need, something like this:
FIG. 1 is an exploded front perspective view of one embodiment of the present
invention.
FIG. 2 is a partial rear perspective view of the head portion of the embodiment of
FIG. 1, showing the battery compartment and battery.
So how should I describe legally, two different figures that relate to the same embodiment?
Are you trying to self-file a patent? I strongly recommend having a patent lawyer answer these specific questions.
it's a lot of effort and expense to file, and 'wording' isn't the place to try to save $$'s... :)..
