MPEP § 2173.05(v) — Mere Function of Machine (Annotated Rules)
§2173.05(v) Mere Function of Machine
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2173.05(v), 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.
Mere Function of Machine
This section addresses Mere Function of Machine. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112. Contains: 1 guidance statement and 2 other statements.
Key Rules
Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h))
Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, solely on the ground that they define the inherent function of a disclosed machine or apparatus. In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) – Definiteness (MPEP 2171-2173)
Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, solely on the ground that they define the inherent function of a disclosed machine or apparatus. In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.
Lack of Antecedent Basis (MPEP 2173.05(e))
Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, solely on the ground that they define the inherent function of a disclosed machine or apparatus. In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – Definiteness (MPEP 2171-2173) Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) Lack of Antecedent Basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)) | 35 U.S.C. § 112 |
| 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – Definiteness (MPEP 2171-2173) Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) Lack of Antecedent Basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)) | 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) |
| 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – Definiteness (MPEP 2171-2173) Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) Lack of Antecedent Basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)) | In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968) |
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(v) — Mere Function of Machine
Source: USPTO2173.05(v) Mere Function of Machine [R-11.2013]
Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, solely on the ground that they define the inherent function of a disclosed machine or apparatus. In reTarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.