MPEP 2406.01
Description in Application Specification

This is the Ninth Edition of the MPEP, Revision 08.2017, Last Revised in January 2018

Previous: §2406 | Next: §2406.02

2406.01    Description in Application Specification [R-07.2015]

37 CFR 1.804(a) specifies not only a permissible time frame for making an original deposit, but also specifies that the biological material deposited must be specifically identified in the application for patent as filed. The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 and provides an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.

The description in the Lundak application as filed (now U.S. Patent No. 4,594,325) provides a suitable illustration of the specific identification and description which are required in an application as filed. In that application, an immortal B-cell line was disclosed and claimed. The cell line was referred to in the application, as filed, as WI-L2-729 HF2. The methods of obtaining and using this cell line were also described in the application as filed. A deposit of the cell line was made with the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) about a week after the application was filed in the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the requirements of access by the Office to a sample of the cell line during pendency, and public access after grant, were met by Lundak's procedures. The Court further held that the addition of information designating the depository, accession number, and deposit date of the deposited cell line in ATCC after the filing date did not violate the prohibition against new matter in 35 U.S.C. 132. In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, it must be clear from the application as filed that the invention claimed and described in the specification "was fully capable of being reduced to practice (i.e., no technological problems, the resolution of which would require more than ordinary skill and reasonable time, remained in order to obtain an operative, useful process)." Feldman v. Aunstrup, 517 F.2d 1351, 1355, 186 USPQ 108, 113 (CCPA 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 912 (1976).