Wysebridge Patent Bar Academy | Carville | Activity https://wysebridge.com/patent-bar-academy/members/bubronaldo17/activity/ Activity feed for Carville. Mon, 27 Apr 2026 13:14:11 +0000 https://buddypress.org/?v=2.7.10 en-US 30 hourly 2 9b5fd378b1e0685736ff7a75f27e5d06 Carville started the discussion This is an improperly written question. in the forum 2100 https://wysebridge.com/patent-bar-academy/forums/forum/practice-questions-and-categories/2100-2/ Fri, 09 Jan 2026 06:03:46 +0000 This is an improperly written question.

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.

]]>