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 it is a part discloses an apparatus which will inherently carry out the recited steps.”

This case established that process claims should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of whether a disclosed apparatus would inherently perform the claimed steps. This ruling protects inventors from having their process claims unfairly rejected based solely on the functionality of a related machine or apparatus.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2173.05(V) - Mere Function Of Machine, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: Ccpa, Inherent Function, Legal Precedent, Patent Rejection, process claims, Tarczy-Hornoch