Find answers and ask questions about the Patent Bar!

Dashboard › Forums › Practice Questions & Categories › 2100 › This is an improperly written question.

  • 2100

    This is an improperly written question.

    Posted by Carville on 01/09/2026 at 6:03 am

    I am a former patent examiner of 4 years. None of these will trigger a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) rejection because 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not a rejection.

    A) “a module for” B) “a component for” C) “an element for” D) “a member for” E) None of the above.

    Carville replied 2 weeks, 2 days ago 1 Member · 0 Replies
  • 0 Replies

Sorry, there were no replies found.

Log in to reply.

Start of Discussion
0 of 0 replies June 2018
Now

Report

Harassment or bullying behavior
Contains mature or sensitive content
Contains misleading or false information
Contains abusive or derogatory content
Contains spam, fake content or potential malware

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

  • See blocked member's posts
  • Mention this member in posts
  • Message this member
  • Add this member as a connection

Please note: This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin. Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Report

You have already reported this .