How does 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interact with other requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112?
This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.
While 35 U.S.C. 112(f) permits a particular form of claim limitation, it does not create exceptions to other requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The MPEP states:
“While 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, permits a particular form of claim limitation, it cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description, enablement or best mode requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph or the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
This means that even if a claim uses means-plus-function language, it must still meet all other requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, including enablement, written description, and definiteness.