(66)                    Deposit Account Authorizations

   The rules of practice were amended effective Oct. 1, 1982, at 37 CFR 
1.25(b) to state that: "A general authorization to charge all fees,
or only certain fees, set forth in      1.16 to 1.18 to a deposit 
account may be filed in an individual application, either for the entire 
pendency of the application or with respect to a particular paper 
filed." A general authorization would not apply to document supply 
fees under    1.19, such as those required for certified copies; to 
post-issuance fees under    1.20 such as those required for maintenance 
fees; or to miscellaneous fees and charges under    1.21, such as 
assignment recording fees.
   Many applications filed prior to Oct. 1, 1982, contain broad language
authorizing any additional fees which might have been due to be charged
to a deposit account. The Patent and Trademark Office does not interpret
such broad authorizations, filed in an application on or after Oct. 1,
1982, will be interpreted as authorization to charge the issue fee; as
well as any other fee set forth in      1.16, 1.17 or 1.18. Fees under
sections 1.19, 1.20 and 1.21 will not be charged as a result of a
general authorization under section 1.25.
   It is recommended that authorizations to charge fees to deposit
accounts include reference to the particular fees or fee sections of the
rules which applicant intends to authorize. For example, if filing and
processing fees under      1.16 and 1.17 only are intended to be
included in the authorization, and not the issue fee under    1.18, the
authorization could read: "The Commissioner is hereby authorized to
charge any fees under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17 which may be required during
the entire pendency of the application to Deposit Account No.is2p."
Such an authorization would clearly exclude issue fees under 37 CFR 1.18
while including all the filing and processing fees listed in 37 CFR 1.16
and 1.17. Similarly, if it were intended to authorize the charging of
fees relating only to a specific paper, the authorization could read
"The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees under 37 CFR
1.16 and 1.17 which may be required by this paper to Deposit Account
No.is2p." Such authorizations would cover situations in which a check
to cover a filing and processing fee under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17 was
omitted or was for an amount less than the amount required.
   It is extremely important that the authorization be clear and
unambiguous. If applicants file authorizations which are ambiguous and
which deviate from the usual forms of authorizations, the Office may not
interpret the authorizations in the manner applicants intend. In such
cases applicants could be subject to further expenses, petitions, etc.
in order to correct fees which were not charged as intended due to an
ambiguous authorization.

July 1, 1983                                    GERALD J. MOSSINGHOFF
                                              Commissioner of Patents
                                                       and Trademarks

                                 [1032 OG 32]