Avoid

JimIvey

My preference is for (a) or (b).  I don't see any meaningful problems with the sorts of interpretations you mentioned.

I have problems with (c).  I was reading a cited patent in an Office Action and the author makes no mention of any of the similar elements in the various figures.  For example, Figure 1 might include a CPU 102 and Figure 7 might include a CPU 724.  It seems the Spec is describing different aspects of what could be the same CPU, but it's not clear.  Description of CPU 102 (well, at least what it does and in response to what code) seems incomplete and the description of CPU 724 could help if it were clearly applicable to CPU 102 as well.  But, as far as I can tell, the disclosure is so unclear as to fail under Section 112, paragraph 1.

In other words, if you describe nothing but a collection of unrelated embodiment parts without sorting them into functional embodiments, you have a much more serious problem than a possible, albeit stretched, interpretation that two of your embodiments are necessarily mutually exclusive.  Some practitioners try so hard to avoid unintended interpretations that they fail to provide the detailed, concise description required by Section 112.  Personally, I'd rather clearly meet the requirements of law and take my chances in litigation with the presumption of validity on my side.

Regards.

smgsmc

Thanks, Jim.  The scenarios under my consideration are more definite.  You had answered my post on linear translators.  So, the situation would be:  In one embodiment, the linear translator (shown in Fig. 1) is a slide adjusted by a thumbscrew.  In another embodiment (shown in Fig. 2), the linear translator is a linear stage driven by a computer-controlled stepper motor.  Just don't want to preclude a combination of a slide adjusted by a thumbscrew AND a computer-controlled stepper motor.  I didn't think anyone would interpret the phrasing to imply mutually exclusive embodiments, but I'm the newbie at my firm.  That's why I like to get sanity checks on this forum.

JimIvey

I have no problems with the language you suggest.  I use things like it all the time.  It doesn't mean your supervising practitioner won't require you to do something different.  But I'd say it at least passes the sniff test ... no so obviously bad that it stinks.

As for linear distance manipulation, you might consider eccentric rotating disk(s) and/or scissor-jack implementations like the boxing glove on the end of mechanical scissor-jack extenders used extensively in Looney-Toons of the 1970s.

Regards.

smgsmc

Thanks again, Jim.  Good insight there.