C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES › Subpart B—National Processing Provisions

37 C.F.R. § 1.143

Reconsideration of requirement

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

If the applicant disagrees with the requirement for restriction, he may request reconsideration and withdrawal or modification of the requirement, giving the reasons therefor. (See § 1.111.) In requesting reconsideration the applicant must indicate a provisional election of one invention for prosecution, which invention shall be the one elected in the event the requirement becomes final The requirement for restriction will be reconsidered on such a request. If the requirement is repeated and made final the examiner will at the same time act on the claims to the invention elected.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Univ. of Massachusetts v. Kappos, 903 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Univ. of Massachusetts v. Kappos, 903 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2012). “, 37 C.F.R. § 1.143 (“If the applicant disagrees with the requirement for restriction, he may request reconsideration and withdrawal or modification of the requirement, giving the reasons therefor.”
Advantek Mktg., Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., 898 F.3d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Advantek elected Group I, stating: Although applicants respectfully disagree with the Restriction Requirement, Group I, including corresponding Embodiment 1 and Figs.”
In Re Sarah C. Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.143 , 1.144 (1989). However, after acquiescing in the restriction requirement, cancelling the non-elected claim and allowing the ’219 patent to issue, Watkin-son has lost her opportunity to challenge the propriety of the restriction requirement.”
Hyatt v. Vidal (D.D.C. 2024). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.143 ; see also MPEP § 818.03(b).”
Zachariah v. Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 990 F. Supp. 1404 (S.D. Fla. 1996). “37 C.F.R. § 1.143 . If Plaintiff is still dissatisfied, he must then petition the Commissioner for review.”
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.