How does the USPTO apply the “Mere Function of Machine” rule during patent examination?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies the “Mere Function of Machine” rule by not rejecting process or method claims solely because they describe the function of a disclosed machine. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(v): “Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35…

Read More

How does the Tarczy-Hornoch case relate to the “Mere Function of Machine” rule?

The Tarczy-Hornoch case is a significant legal precedent that established the “Mere Function of Machine” rule in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(v): “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…

Read More

What is the significance of the “Mere Function of Machine” rule for patent applicants?

The “Mere Function of Machine” rule is significant for patent applicants because it protects their process or method claims from being unfairly rejected. According to MPEP 2173.05(v): “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…

Read More