Numbering Figures

[Med Star IP]

When numbering figures which represent different embodiments of the same system, should you use like numbers for like components in each figure or start the numbering process from scratch for each one? For example, you have two system network architectures, a basic and a more complex version, but each have some components in common such as a client computer, wireless device, internet, firewall, web server, application server, etc. The two figures are different versions of a system used to implement the invention. Should you give those like components like numbers in each? They just illustrate that you can build out or implement the same invention in a basic or more complex system. Thanks everyone!

[divgradcurl]

Originally Posted by Med Star IP

When numbering figures which represent different embodiments of the same system, should you use like numbers for like components in each figure or start the numbering process from scratch for each one? For example, you have two system network architectures, a basic and a more complex version, but each have some components in common such as a client computer, wireless device, internet, firewall, web server, application server, etc. The two figures are different versions of a system used to implement the invention. Should you give those like components like numbers in each? They just illustrate that you can build out or implement the same invention in a basic or more complex system. Thanks everyone!

If you are referring to the same part in two different drawings, the number has to be the same. If you are referring to different parts, then the numbers must be different. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).

For example, if each embodiment has a microprocessor, and one embodiment builds on the first, so that the microprocessor is the same device in each drawing, even though one embodiment may be more complicated than the other, then you would use the same number in each drawing. You might have something like, in a first embodiment shown in FIG 1, a processor 120 is attached to a memory 130. In a second embodiment, shown in FIG 2, the processor 120 is attached to two memory devices 240 and 250. Something like that.

However, if you have something like in a first embodiment, in FIG 1, a processor 120 is assigned to memory 130. In a second embodiment, in FIG 2, a processor 220 is assigned to two memory devices 240 and 250, then you need different numbers, because you are not talking about the very same processor. Even though the two processors might be the same type, and function in the same way, they are not the same processor.

Hope that makes sense.

[Med Star IP]

Thanks so much. The MPEP reference was very helpful, although I'm stil not positive which one is my situation because the languege in 1.84 refers to "views". Let me ask a hypothetical follow up, since you seem to be confident on the differences.

FIG. 1 is a basic network architecture for a web application, and includes parts such as a client computer, wireless device, Internet, router, web server, application, application server, database, and database server. The specification will say that components such as servers and routers may be implemented as a single or multiple units (i.e. working as a cluster).

FIG. 2 is a more complex version of FIG. 1, only because it introduces other components such as a load balancer, email, image, authentication, and mobile servers using clusters, so that the routers, web servers, and other single unit servers from FIG. 1 are depicted as clusters of three servers in FIG. 2. I'm assuming here that whether they're 1 or n servers, they're still the same and serve the same function (without getting into detail on load balancing, etc).

So, can I give the web server 110 in FIG. 1 the same number in FIG. 2, even though it's a cluster of web servers in a more built out/developed architecture? Same goes for the other servers and routers. Also, I'd like to just give the cluster a single number because it's easier to follow than having to reference multiple numbers for each of the n servers.

What do you think? Is that ok? Thank you again - I really appreciate your knowledge and opinion.

[divgradcurl]

Originally Posted by Med Star IP

So, can I give the web server 110 in FIG. 1 the same number in FIG. 2, even though it's a cluster of web servers in a more built out/developed architecture? Same goes for the other servers and routers. Also, I'd like to just give the cluster a single number because it's easier to follow than having to reference multiple numbers for each of the n servers.

It's hard to say exactly without seeing the app. But if you have a webserver 110 in Fig. 1, and then in Fig. 2 a cluster of webservers -- each one identical to the webserver in Fig. 1 -- you could probably refer to each of the webservers as a webserver 110. The usual method would be to have each webserver in the cluster numbered as webserver 110(1)..(n) or something like that.

You certainly would not refer to the cluster as a webserver 110, because it is not the same thing as a single webserver.

[Med Star IP]

Thank you so much. That was incredibly helpful. Do you know of any link or other good resource for numbering figures? I had never even seen that convention before. So it would be - 110(1), 110(2), 110(3)...? I'm sure this will help a lot of other people, so thanks again.

[divgradcurl]

Originally Posted by Med Star IP

Thank you so much. That was incredibly helpful. Do you know of any link or other good resource for numbering figures? I had never even seen that convention before. So it would be - 110(1), 110(2), 110(3)...? I'm sure this will help a lot of other people, so thanks again.

As an example, see U.S. Patent 6,292,903, figure 1.