(a) The applicant may submit an inventor's oath or declaration meeting the requirements of § 1.63, § 1.64, or § 1.162 to correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies present in an earlier-filed inventor's oath or declaration. Deficiencies or inaccuracies due to the failure to meet the requirements of § 1.63(b) in an oath or declaration may be corrected with an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, except that any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48.
(b) A supplemental inventor's oath or declaration under this section must be executed by the person whose inventor's oath or declaration is being withdrawn, replaced, or otherwise corrected.
(c) The Office will not require a person who has executed an oath or declaration in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 115 and § 1.63 or 1.162 for an application to provide an additional inventor's oath or declaration for the application.
(d) No new matter may be introduced into a nonprovisional application after its filing date even if an inventor's oath or declaration is filed to correct deficiencies or inaccuracies present in the earlier-filed inventor's oath or declaration.
[77 FR 48819, Aug. 14, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“It appears, therefore, that Whirlpool could have argued that even if the C-I-P declaration were allowed to relate back to the filing date of the Rule 60 continuation application under Rule 67(a), 37 C.F.R. § 1.67 (a), it would have no effect unless filed with a C-I-P application…”
R.R. Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co., 579 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Pa. 1983).
· cites it 3× “§ 112 ; 3) the claims in the patent were filed more than one year after sale and use of the claimed invention, rendering the patent invalid under the late claiming doctrine; and 4) no supplemental oath was filed in support of the claims which ultimately became the claims of the…”
A. Stucki Co. v. Schwam, 634 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Pa. 1986).
“§ 112 , (3) that the claims on the patent were filed more than one year after sale and use of the claimed invention, rendering the patent invalid; (4) that no supplemental oath was filed in support of the added claims which ultimately were included in the claims of the patent,…”
Hadco Prods., Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Co., 462 F.2d 1265 (3rd Cir. 1972).
“” 37 C.F.R. 1.67(a). This implies that the Patent Examiner found the matter introduced by the amendments to be substantially embraced in the statement of invention.”
Medtronic, Inc. v. Telectronics, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 838 (D. Colo. 1987).
· cites it 2× “It also argues that, even if there is support in the statement of invention for this new matter, it was not sufficiently claimed initially and therefore a supplemental oath should have been filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.67 . The specific language of claim 1 which the defendant…”
Leviton Mfg. Co. v. Nicor, Inc., 557 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D.N.M. 2007).
“See 37 C.F.R. § 1.67 (c)(Z )-(2). Material not explicitly contained in the single, prior art document may still be considered for purposes of anticipation if that material is incorporated by reference into the document.”
Printing Plate Supply Co. v. Crescent Engraving Co., 246 F. Supp. 654 (W.D. Mich. 1965).
“Supplemental oaths are mentioned in a supplemental note to § 115, relating to Rules of Practice of the Patent Office, specifically 37 C.F.R. § 1.67 , which reads in relevant part as follows: “Supplemental oath for matter not originally claimed (a) When an applicant presents a…”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.67(a) — 1 case
Hadco Prods., Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Co., 462 F.2d 1265 (3rd Cir. 1972).
“” 37 C.F.R. 1.67(a). This implies that the Patent Examiner found the matter introduced by the amendments to be substantially embraced in the statement of invention.”
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.