- recite, recitation (Patentese for: specify; set forth; describe)
- reciteren, recitatie (literal translation of ‘to recite’) (?)
- aangeven (?)
- bekendmaken (?)
- specificeren (?)
- uiteenzetten (?)
- beschrijven (?)
- citeren (?)
- voordragen (?)
- noemen, genoemde (?)
- recited state of the art = genoemde stand van de techniek
- recited features vs non-recited features = genoemde kenmerken vs niet genoemde kenmerken
Meaning of ‘recite’ as used in patents
Drafting Patent Claims for use in the United States in Mechanical and Electrical Cases, By Allen Wood
A corollary to this is that the larger the checklist, the narrower the claim. Consider a first claim that specifies (or, in patent parlance, “recites”) an element A, an element B connected to the A, and an element C connected to the B. This first claim is broader than a second claim that recites an A, a B connected to the A, a C connected to the B, and also a D connected to the C.
The reason is that the second claim recites everything in the first claim, but also requires the presence of an element D that is connected to one of the elements recited in the first claim (specifically, the element C). The first claim is also broader than a third claim that recites an A, a B bolted to the A, and a C glued to the B, since the first claim uses the more general term “connected” without restrictions on the nature of the connection (“bolted,” “glued”). The elements recited in a claim and the connections between elements are frequently referred to as “limitations,” since they limit the scope of the claim.
2106.04(a)(1) Examples of Claims That Do Not Recite Abstract Ideas [R-10.2019]
When evaluating a claim to determine whether it recites an abstract idea, examiners should keep in mind that while "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas", not all claims recite an abstract idea. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980-81 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 US 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The Step 2A Prong One analysis articulated in MPEP § 2106.04 accounts for this cautionary principle by requiring a claim to recite (i.e., set forth or describe) an abstract idea in Prong One before proceeding to the Prong Two inquiry about whether the claim is directed to that idea, thereby separating claims reciting abstract ideas from those that are merely based on or involve an abstract idea.
Some claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite an abstract idea, although it may be apparent that at some level they are based on or involve an abstract idea. Because these claims do not recite an abstract idea (or other judicial exception), they are eligible at Step 2A Prong One (Pathway B).
Understanding "Patentese" — A Patent Glossary - Arnold B. Silverman and George K. Stacey
Dependent Claim: This is a claim that makes express reference to and depends on a prior claim and, thereby, incorporates by reference all of the recitals of the prior claim. This claim must be read as if it contained its own express recitals plus the recitals of every claim or claims from which it depends. Claims that do not depend from another are referred to as independent claims.
Equivalents—Means-Plus-Function Claims: Rather than expressly reciting a component or feature in a patent claim, one may recite a feature as a means for accomplishing something such as "seal means for resisting passage of water between the bushing and the shaft."
On December 1, 2015, the International Trade Commission (ITC) rendered an opinion In the Matter of Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, investigation no. 337-TA-907. The Opinion covered ten separate questions; however, only two are discussed here. Those two questions cover aspects of interpretation of functional claim language, and interpretation of claims that recite user-action.
The claims at issue here are generally related to an "accessory mounting system," and this preamble language provides guidance that the focus of the claims is not on the camera but on an accessory mounting system. Claim 1 (and other claims in the '659 patent) do not explicitly recite a camera as a component of the invention, but rather claim a structure that is "configured to accommodate a forward facing camera."
The Federal Circuit, the Commission, and district court precedents support finding that the claim language "configured to" and "wherein … when" appearing in conjunction with the term camera in the asserted claims limit these claim limitations to the primary recited mounting structure and do not extend to the secondary structure for which the recited feature is configured.
This result is straight-forward considering that the claims are directed to a system, and claims 91 and 92 recite further components/structure of the system.
Two important developments have occurred since the mid and late 1990s, which have impacted the form or viability of Beauregard claims. First, in In re Nuijten, the Federal Circuit held that signals were not patent eligible, because their ephemeral nature kept them from falling within the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101, such as articles of manufacture. Practice accordingly evolved to recite Beauregard claim matter as being stored on "non-transitory" computer-readable media.
In the U.S., functional claims, commonly known as "means-plus-function" or "step-plus-function" claims, are governed by various federal statutes, including 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6, which reads: "An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof."
"In claims that recite... components of compositions, it is sometimes important to claim, as alternatives, a group of constituents that are considered equivalent for the purposes of the invention.... It has been permissible to claim such an artificial group, referred to as a 'Markush Group,' ever since the inventor in the first case... won the right to do so."
‘MOBILE DEVICE FOR CONDITIONING LAND’ (BE1020109A3, Belgium)
The terms "comprising" and "includes" and "comprising" as used herein are synonymous with "including" "contains" or "containing", "contains", and are inclusive or open-ended and do not exclude additional, non-recited members, elements or process steps.
Generic meaning of ‘recite’
1. Repeat aloud or declaim (a poem or passage) from memory before an audience
repeat from memory, say aloud, read aloud, declaim, quote, speak, deliver, render;
spout, parrot, say parrot-fashion;
rare cantillate, intonate, bespout
1.1 Say aloud (a series of names, facts, etc.)
enumerate, list, detail, itemize, reel off, rattle off;
recount, relate, describe, narrate, give an account of, run through, recapitulate, repeat, rehearse, specify, particularize, spell out
1. The action of repeating something aloud from memory: ‘the recitation of a beautiful poem’
1.1 The repetition of a list of facts: ‘the history of a company is more important than the recitation of mere details like this’
Generic meaning of ‘reciteren’ (literal translation of recite)
1. op voordrachtstoon ten gehore brengen
synoniem: opzeggen, voordragen
2. de kunst van het voordragen beoefenen
1. het voordragen
(Van Dale Groot Woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal, 14e ed. (2005))
‘Nieuwe zuurdesemsamenstellingen en werkwijzen voor hun bereiding’ (BE1020893A5, Belgium)
‘De recitatie van numerieke bereiken door eindpunten omvat alle getallen en fracties die binnen de respectievelijke bereiken begrepen zijn, evenals de gereciteerde eindpunten.’
‘Verbeterde recyclage van polyester flessen’ (BE1025626B1, Belgium)
‘Het citeren van numerieke bereiken door eindpunten omvat alle getallen en breuken die zijn opgenomen binnen dat bereik, evenals de genoemde eindpunten.’