37 C.F.R. § 1.132
Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections
When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., & Hubert J.P. Schoemaker, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., & Hubert J.P. Schoemaker, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “During prosecution Wands submitted a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 providing information about all of the hybridomas that appellants had produced before filing the patent application.”
In Re Dbc, 545 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “In response to the examiner’s rejection of the claims during reexamination, DBC submitted three declarations pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 to provide objective evidence of nonobviousness.”
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Along with the continuation application, Pfizer submitted a preliminary amendment and statement, and a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by Dr. Wells dated October 3, 1988 (“Wells Declaration”).”
Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 . The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures recognizes that section 1.”
Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2002). “Plaintiff Canady submitted to the PTO a self-declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 supporting his position that no substantial questions of patentability were raised by the references submitted by the defendants.”
Dippin' Dots v. Mosey v. Esty, Jr., 476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “DDI then filed a continuation application, amending Claim 1 by adding the “serving” step. The examiner again rejected over the Aref reference, noting that “dependent on the food product being served,” it would be obvious to serve the product in a cold, free-flowing state.”
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “This is supported by the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 of Gordon Sanghera which accompanies the present amendment.”
Paragon Podiatry Lab'y, Inc. v. Klm Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “6 The district court based its holding upon (1) the applicant’s failure to disclose to the patent examiner the previously discussed sales of the Omniflex or-thotic, and (2) the applicant’s submission of deceptive affidavits in response to the patent examiner’s request for…”
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc, 769 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The mechanism for providing this evidence is the submission of comparative data in affidavits or decla- rations filed pursuant to USPTO Rule 132, 37 C.F.R. §1.132 . Such data may involve new experiments per- formed on the invention and the prior art for purposes of comparison,…”
Cfmt, Inc. & Cfm Tech., Inc. v. Yieldup Int'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Therefore, a reasonable examiner would not have found it important in deciding whether to allow the application.”
Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., Defendant/cross-Appellant, & McNeil Inc. & Johnson & Johnson, 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “The examiner explained his change of mind: This conclusion is supported by the declarations filed under 37 CFR 1.132 and the data submitted therewith on January 14, 1992 and April 22, 1992 which establish that when certain propionic acid NSAID ingredients are combined with…”
Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Appellant relies upon his two declarations filed under 37 CFR § 1.132 in support of this assertion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.