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. § 1.164

Claim

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

The claim shall 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. More than one claim is not permitted.

(35 U.S.C. 162)
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. § 1.164 ; Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1605 (Rev.”
Kim Bros. v. Hagler, 167 F. Supp. 665 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “Appendix, rule 164; 37 C.F. R. § 1.164. There is also the requirement that plant patent drawings be “artistically and competently executed”; the drawing may be in color “when color is a distinguishing characteristic of the new variety.”
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.