MPEP § 2173.05(f) — Reference to Limitations in Another Claim (Annotated Rules)
§2173.05(f) Reference to Limitations in Another Claim
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2173.05(f), including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Reference to Limitations in Another Claim
This section addresses Reference to Limitations in Another Claim. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112, and 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Contains: 2 guidance statements and 1 other statement.
Key Rules
Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h))
A claim which makes reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation is an acceptable claim construction which should not necessarily be rejected as improper or confusing under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, claims which read: “The product produced by the method of claim 1.” or “A method of producing ethanol comprising contacting amylose with the culture of claim 1 under the following conditions…..” are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, merely because of the reference to another claim. See also Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (where reference to “the nozzle of claim 7” in a method claim was held to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). However, where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
A claim which makes reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation is an acceptable claim construction which should not necessarily be rejected as improper or confusing under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, claims which read: “The product produced by the method of claim 1.” or “A method of producing ethanol comprising contacting amylose with the culture of claim 1 under the following conditions…..” are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, merely because of the reference to another claim. See also Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (where reference to “the nozzle of claim 7” in a method claim was held to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). However, where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should also determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection III.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) | 35 U.S.C. § 112 |
| Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) | 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) |
| Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) | 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) |
| Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) | MPEP § 608.01(n) |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2173.05(f) — Reference to Limitations in Another Claim
Source: USPTO2173.05(f) Reference to Limitations in Another Claim [R-11.2013]
A claim which makes reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation is an acceptable claim construction which should not necessarily be rejected as improper or confusing under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, claims which read: “The product produced by the method of claim 1.” or “A method of producing ethanol comprising contacting amylose with the culture of claim 1 under the following conditions …..” are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, merely because of the reference to another claim. See also Ex partePorter, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (where reference to “the nozzle of claim 7” in a method claim was held to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). However, where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should also determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection III.