E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter

About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.


Become a Fan

« USPTO Provides RCE Outreach Progress Update | Main | Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) »

September 03, 2013


Language is an imperfect vehicle.

Rather than three dimensional versus two dimensional (as there is no such thing as a two dimensional cell), perhaps a better phrasing would be monolayer versus stacked layer growth. A three dimensional object may easily have a monolayer growth that does not achieve the desired result.

Or to think of this in geeky math terms, a monolayer growth on a single sphere is three-dimensional in a Cartesian coordinate system, but still can be related to a two-dimensional description in a spherical coordinate system.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30