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. § 1.163

Specification and arrangement of application elements in a plant application

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

(a) The specification must contain as full and complete a disclosure as possible of the plant and the characteristics thereof that distinguish the same over related known varieties, and its antecedents, and must particularly point out where and in what manner the variety of plant has been asexually reproduced. For a newly found plant, the specification must particularly point out the location and character of the area where the plant was discovered.

(b) The elements of the plant application, if applicable, should appear in the following order:

(1) Plant application transmittal form.

(2) Fee transmittal form.

(3) Application data sheet (see § 1.76).

(4) Specification.

(5) Drawings (in duplicate).

(6) The inventor's oath or declaration (§ 1.162).

(c) The specification should include the following sections in order:

(1) Title of the invention, which may include an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant.

(2) Cross-reference to related applications (unless included in the application data sheet).

(3) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.

(4) Latin name of the genus and species of the plant claimed.

(5) Variety denomination.

(6) Background of the invention.

(7) Brief summary of the invention.

(8) Brief description of the drawing.

(9) Detailed botanical description.

(10) A single claim.

(11) Abstract of the disclosure.

(d) The text of the specification or sections defined in paragraph (c) of this section, if applicable, should be preceded by a section heading in upper case, without underlining or bold type.

[65 FR 54675, Sept. 8, 2000, as amended at 77 FR 48821, Aug. 14, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1958–1996 · leading case: Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, & Coastal Nursery, Jess Rodrigues, & Donna Rodrigues, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, & Coastal Nursery, Jess Rodrigues, & Donna Rodrigues, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “37 C.F.R. § 1.163 (a). Only a single claim is permitted in a plant patent.”
Kim Bros. v. Hagler, 167 F. Supp. 665 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “Appendix, rule 163; 37 C.F.R. § 1.163 . Only one claim is permitted and this is required to be “in formal terms to the new and distinct variety of the specified plant as described and illustrated, and may also recite the principal distinguishing characteristics.”
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.