U.S. Patent No. 8,042,274 did not define doohickey in words, but rather instructs that a doohickey is shown in Fig. 5:<\/p>\n
So at least now, you will know one when you seen one.<\/p>\n Thingamajig<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Thingamajig has not been expressly defined in any patent, but it must be a kind of disc drive system, appearing in two Seagate Technology patents (6,411,454 and 7,209,304), the latter stating:<\/p>\n an including a bonus reference to “gadget.”\u00a0 Speaking of gadget:<\/p>\n Gadget<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Before its recent appropriation by\u00a0computer geeks,\u00a0\u00a0“gadget” was a generic reference to a device, see in U.S. Patent No. 3,998,694, and sometimes a pejorative reference (e.g., 4,019,313 or 4,101,130).\u00a0 Appearing in nearly 2000 patents, “gadget” has taken a wide variety of meanings.\u00a0 In U.S. Patent No. 5,005,336 it is tool that helps turn a coconut into an envelope.<\/p>\n There\u00a0are even devices to organize one’s gadgets: D316,502 and D312,559 and D303552, and even one to help you find them when they are lost: D726,691.\u00a0 Of course gadget was the code name for the first atom bomb, making all other uses\u00a0trivial in comparison.<\/p>\n Doodad<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n U.S. Patent Nos. 6,398,058 and 7,004,347 gives us a definition of doodads: “small miscellaneous items, e.g., paper clips, rubber bands, buttons, etc.” and even provides a cup 10 to hold them.\u00a0 Although in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,106,300 and 6,890,179, a doodad is an “expense.”<\/p>\n \u00a0Widget<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n U.S. Patent No. 9,225,817, explains that “widget” is “a\u00a0 contraction of ‘window gadget,'” and “refers to components in a graphical user interface (GUI).”\u00a0 However the use predates the computer age, and the word can be found in more than 7,000 patents.<\/p>\n Gizmo<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Gizmo is used in more than 200 patents, mostly to refer to some non-specific device.\u00a0 It is apparently part of some prosecutor’s stock language, because most of the uses are along the lines of:<\/p>\n The words “comprising,” “including,” and “having” are always open-ended, irrespective of whether they appear as the primary transitional phrase of a claim, or as a transitional phrase within an element or sub-element of the claim (e.g., the claim “a widget comprising: A; B; and C” would be infringed by a device containing 2A’s, B, and 3C’s; also, the claim “a gizmo comprising: A; B, including X, Y, and Z; and C, having P and Q” would be infringed by a device containing 3A’s, 2X’s, 3Y’s, Z, 6P’s, and Q).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lexicography – the power to define words – is heady stuff (at least for your typical mild-mannered patent prosecutor). It would seem that this power would be most responsibly applied to words that had no meaning, rather than redefining a … Continue reading ![\"doohickey\"](\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/doohickey.jpg\")
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n