Which of the following is NOT a rule regarding Multiple Dependent Claims (MPC)?

The assertion that a Multiple Dependent Claim (MPC) can depend on other MPCs is, in fact, a rule regarding their structure. Multiple Dependent Claims are designed to provide a way to connect claims that depend on multiple preceding claims, allowing for a more streamlined approach to patent claim drafting.

The correct understanding is that an MPC must rely on the structure established by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which allows it to depend on both single and multiple prior claims, including other MPCs. Therefore, the statement that an MPC can depend on other MPCs correctly reflects the rules governing their use.

In contrast, the option suggesting that an MPC must use "or" for alternative claims is incorrect in the context of the requirements for MPCs and does not hold as a rule. MPCs are required to define their scope unambiguously, and the claim language must be clear.

It's important to note that an MPC must be structured so that it does not claim alternatively referenced combinations from several other claims directly. Claims format is pivotal in ensuring that the scope of what is being claimed is ascertainable.

Finally, it is also essential to recognize that when MPCs are involved, they do not need to be independent if they are specifically intended