Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).“
A general-purpose computer is not sufficient structure for a computer-implemented function. The algorithm may be expressed in various forms, including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart.
To learn more:
For a specification to properly support a means-plus-function limitation, it must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function.“
If the specification does not disclose adequate structure, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness and may also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
To learn more:
MPEP 2181 – Identifying And Interpreting A 35 U.S.C. 112(F) Or Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 (2)
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).“
A general-purpose computer is not sufficient structure for a computer-implemented function. The algorithm may be expressed in various forms, including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart.
To learn more:
For a specification to properly support a means-plus-function limitation, it must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function.“
If the specification does not disclose adequate structure, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness and may also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).“
A general-purpose computer is not sufficient structure for a computer-implemented function. The algorithm may be expressed in various forms, including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart.
To learn more:
For a specification to properly support a means-plus-function limitation, it must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function.“
If the specification does not disclose adequate structure, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness and may also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).“
A general-purpose computer is not sufficient structure for a computer-implemented function. The algorithm may be expressed in various forms, including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart.
To learn more:
For a specification to properly support a means-plus-function limitation, it must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function.“
If the specification does not disclose adequate structure, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness and may also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
To learn more:
Sixth Paragraph Limitation (2)
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).“
A general-purpose computer is not sufficient structure for a computer-implemented function. The algorithm may be expressed in various forms, including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart.
To learn more:
For a specification to properly support a means-plus-function limitation, it must disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. The MPEP states:
“The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function.“
If the specification does not disclose adequate structure, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness and may also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
To learn more: