37 C.F.R. §1.804 - Time of making an original deposit

Cite as37 C.F.R. §1.804
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
5 cases
  • Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., Civil Action No.: 16-1118 (CCC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • August 9, 2019
    ...but prior to issuance of his patent, and which is referred to in his specification, meets the statutory requirements."); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.804(a) ("... an original deposit ... may be made ... subject to § 1.809, during pendency of the application for patent.").18 The Court agrees with ......
  • La Chapelle v. Kolodner, Patent Interference 104
    • United States
    • United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • April 16, 2004
    ...in existence prior to the filing date, is referenced in the application, and is subsequently deposited with the appropriate assurances (37 CFR 1.804(b)), one can rely upon that later deposit to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. As held in Lundak, the act of later......
  • Chapelle v. Kolodner, Patent Interference 104
    • United States
    • United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • September 19, 2003
    ...in existence prior to the filing date, is referenced in the application, and is subsequently deposited with the appropriate assurances (37 CFR 1.804(b)), one can rely upon that later deposit to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. As held in Lundak. the act of later......
  • Ex parte Sakazaki, Appeal 2021-002993
    • United States
    • United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • July 14, 2021
    ...the rejection. ENABLEMENT REJECTION The Examiner rej ected the claims for lack of enablement "because the deposit does not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.804(a), which specifies that the biological material deposited must be specifically identified in the application for patent as filed. MPEP 24......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT