Hi Brad, in reviewing your helpful answers on the subject matter of embodiments, I was wondering:
- Can I simply describe the 'embodiments' in the Descriptions Section of the PPA. Or, do I have to show the alternative embodiments in the Drawings, as well? Or both?
- On a drawing, is it bad practice to number a component interaction location (i.e., Part A is spin-welded to Part B at location Number 56)? Or, should I just stick to numbering important physical components/materials that are present in the drawings and provide more detailed descriptions, instead?
- In my alternative embodiments, should I be 'focused' on how my invention, which is essentially a semi-dramatic shape-change of existing public art, but provides multiple new features and advantages, is better, within the same narrow category (i.e., Metal-Shape A vs. Metal-Shape B), or should I attempt to be as broad as possible but risk the possibility of future rejection because I am claiming the merits of the shape change that extends beyond my, relatively narrow, but influential subcategory of product (i.e., Metal-Shape A vs. Glass-Shape B, where the Glass-embodiment has similar, publicly available relatives and is much more common)? Albeit remote, I could see myself pursuing the less-likely 'glass' version in the future, even though the featured shape-change use in glass does not hold as much benefit to the user, as the metal version, which is what I plan on creating first.
IN SHORT - should alternative embodiments stay relatively focused on the subcategory of intended manufacture or be aggressively broad, including as many materials and other tangential categories as possible?
Any guidance will be much appreciated.
Thanks, Brad!