Note that the below question is a hypothetical. As far as I know, Congress isn’t currently thinking of adopting something like this. Nor would I ever advocate for this language as its currently drafted. It was deliberately written so as to produce problematic results.
Question 8: [Limit: 150 words]
Congress is considering the following statute:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 11 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of Section 112(f) the following:
An element expressed as a function that does not comply with this subsection shall be in considered to be in violation of subsection (b).
Argue that this proposed statute is consistent with the policy considerations underlying patent law.
Question 9: [Limit: 150 words]
Argue that this proposed statute is inconsistent with the policy considerations underlying patent law.
Edit: Here would be the text of Section 112(b) and (f) as (hypothetically) amended:
(b) Conclusion.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination.— An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. An element expressed as a function that does not comply with this subsection shall be in considered to be in violation of subsection (b).