How does referencing limitations affect product-by-process claims?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs 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. Referencing limitations can be particularly relevant for product-by-process claims. The MPEP 2173.05(f) provides an example: “The product produced by the method of claim 1.” This example demonstrates that it’s acceptable to define a product claim by referencing a method claim. Such claims are not automatically considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, patent applicants should ensure that the referenced method claim provides sufficient detail to define the product’s characteristics, as the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Reference to Another Claim is Acceptable Under Section 112(b) MPEP 2173.05(f) Claim Can Refer to Another Claim Limitation MPEP 2173.05(f) Recommended Claim Must Be Definite Under Section 112(b) MPEP 2173 Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention MPEP 2173 Required Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention MPEP 2173 Definiteness Requirement for Claims MPEP 2173 Required Claims Must Be Clear and Definite MPEP 2173 Requirement for Clear Claim Language MPEP 2173 Permitted Claims Must Clearly Define Boundaries MPEP 2173 Required Requirement for Clear Claim Boundaries MPEP 2173 Required Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What are some examples of acceptable claim references? When can referencing limitations from another claim lead to rejection? Can method claims reference limitations from apparatus claims? What should examiners consider when reviewing dependent claims? Is it acceptable to reference limitations from another claim?