Skip Navigation Bar
Stanley N. Cohen Papers 1948-2016
search terms in context | full text File Size: 788 K bytes | Add this to my bookbag

 
Box | Folder Title
95 4
Cohen/Boyer patent information, 1975

Signed letter dated November 11, 1975 from Bertram I. Roland to SNC, "C/O Dr. David Hopwood, Department of Genetics, John Innes Institute", "Re: Pat. Appln. . . . Would you please execute the enclosed assignment which must be notarized by a counsel. When you return it to me, I will have Boyer execute the assignment."; two attachments: 1) "ASSIGNMENT" with SNC's name typed below signature line, but no signature, listing both SNC and Boyer as Assignors, Title of Invention: Process and Composition for Biologically Functional Molecular Chimeras, and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University as Assignee, form states that for $1.00 Assignors have "sold, assigned and transferred . . . . all right, title and interest in and to the said invention . . . " to Assignee [signed and unsigned versions of this ASSIGNMENT form also catalogued in Rows 312, 355, and 429]; and 2) four-page "AGREEMENT CONCERNING RIGHTS IN INVENTION" dated June 19, 1975 between SNC and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, signed by SNC and Niels Reimers, at top right of first page "SU-178" and handwritten by SNC, "SNC personal files", on p. 3 refers to "the agreement between Stanford and the Board of Regents [of the University of California] dated 1975", the Department of Genetics is not mentioned in this document, which says net royalties go 1/3 SNC for distribution equally to Stanford's Research Development Fund and School of Medicine Dean's Fellowship Fund; 1/3 to the Department of Medicine; and the final 1/3 "shall be expended in the discretion of the Board of Trustees to further the objects and purposes of Stanford"

Signed two-page letter dated November 7, 1975 from John Wicklatz, General Mills Chemicals, Inc. to Niels J. Reimers, handwritten in upper right of p. 1, "xcc Cohen f S74-43", and in SNC's handwriting, "Reimers file"; text begins, "Many thanks for the information included in your letter of October 22. . . . With regard to Professor Cohen's work on "genetic engineering" which you mentioned, we would have to say this is of no interest to us for commercial development. I asked one of our biochemists who is familiar with the work to comment on it and he described it as a "revolutionary development". However, we are not in a position at present to take on a project of this sort which involves such a variety of far-reaching, but still incompletely defined, ramifications. As to courses you might take in licensing the above technology, we have no advice to offer. Our experience in licensing has never taken us into this field."

Small signed note dated October 6, 1975 from Jane Plagge to SNC, "Enclosed you're your records is a copy of the Agreement between the University of California and Stanford."; attached four-page "AGREEMENT CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF RIGHTS IN INVENTION" dated August 29, 1975 by and between University of California and Stanford, handwritten by SNC at top right is "Reimers file"; signed on p. 4 for Stanford by Niels Reimers and for the University of California by Constance W. Langton, Assistant Secretary, and David M. Blodgett, Assistant Counsel of the Regents; agreement states "the Invention shall be administered by Stanford" and that net revenues will be split in half between Stanford and UC, text elaborates: "Net revenues" as used in this Agreement shall mean the gross proceeds received by Stanford from the sale, licensing or other disposition of the Invention less (15%) of such gross proceeds to cover Stanford's indirect and overhead expenses, plus deduction of reasonable costs for preparing and filing patent applications and attorneys' fees."

Signed memo dated December 23, 1975 from Niels Reimers to SNC, "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; "Enclosed are copies of the memos about the recombinant DNA process by the Technology Licensing Business School Research Assistants. John Poitras and I will schedule a meeting with you after the first of the year to discuss these reports and where we go from here."; six attachments detailed in rows below

December 23, 1975 memo attachments: 1) Signed two-page memo dated August 13, 1975 from Ken Imatani to Niels Reimers re "File S74-43, Industrial Markets for Recombinant DNA Process; text details [p]rograms of extensive research and development for specific commercial applications", attached to memo is a table, "POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF RECOMBINANT DNA PROCESS"

December 23, 1975 memo attachments, continued: 2) signed memo dated August 6, 1975 from Ken Imatani to Niels Reimers re "Discussion with Dr Boyer for Future Development Work for Recombinant DNA Process", highlighted is section that begins, "In particular, Dr Boyer hopes to produce the angiotensin-2 hormone from a chemically synthesized replicon of its DNA . . . If this procedure is successful, the next logical extension would focus on the production of insulin."

December 23, 1975 memo attachments, continued: 3) signed memo dated August 5, 1975 from Ken Imatani to Niels Reimers re "signed memo dated August 6, 1975 from Ken Imatani to Niels Reimers re "Trip to Cutter Labs to Discuss Commercial Potential of Recombinant DNA Process"; Cutter Labs say the applications would be inappropriate for their business, however, quotes Dr. Victor Cabasso, Cutter's director of research and chairman of the Biological Section for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, "If I were a young man again, I would devote my entire life to research and development involving this process.", memo continues, "In addition, Dr Cabasso explained that an example demonstrating commercial use of the product would be required in order for a large pharmaceutical company to make a large capital investment in the process. He recommended seeking government support for a joint industry-university project"

December 23, 1975 memo attachments, continued: 4) one-page of comments dated July 1, 1975, referred to by Josephine Opalka in her July 11, 1975 letter catalogued in Row 384 as: "comments of one reviewer of the invention. The author's identity is held in confidence"; title at top of page: "IN CONFIDENCE Re: PROCESS AND COMPOSITION FOR BIOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL DNA CHIMERAS--Cohen-Boyer; comments conclude, "In summary, it is my view that this is a somewhat ill-conceived patent application that disregards (albeit unintentionally) the contributions of other scientists and is very basic in its concepts and applications. While one can argue that the University should attempt to benefit from this scientific achievement, I am concerned that given the fundamental nature of the work and the number of scientists involved, either directly or indirectlly, that this patent will not reflect favorably on the public service ideals of the University."; this page of comments also catalogued in Row 385

December 23, 1975 memo attachments, continued: 5) signed memo dated October 18, 1974 from Bill Carpenter to Niels Reimers, cc Boyer and SNC; "Attached is a brief description of the technique developed by Drs. Boyer and Cohen, the development necessary for commercial application, licensing strategy, and potential dangers to humans. By copy of this memo, I am asking Dr. Boyer and Dr. Cohen to please bring to our attention anything that is incorrect or with which you may not agree."; attached two-page document, "The Plasmid Gene Transplantation Technique"; this memo and two-page attachment also catalogued in Row 410

December 23, 1975 memo attachments, continued: 6) two-page handwritten memo dated September 18, 1974 from BC [Bill Carpenter?], "To: 74-43", "Re: Dr. Herbert Boyer", recaps Boyer's comments on potential applications, also, "The Berg committee is concerned that researchers might try putting animal virus DNA into the plasmids -- Boyer thinks this must be done someday anyway, not sure it's so dangerous -- but it should be approached carefully.", circled in red pen is sentence: "Boyer not planning on signing away his own personal rights to the invention."

Letter dated December 9, 1975 from John K. Poitras, Associate Technology Licensing to Norman G. Brink, Merck Sharp & Dohme, cc SNC and Boyer, "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page, note from SNC admin at bottom about trouble with Xerox; letter text: " . . . enclosing copies of the three technical papers describing the Recombinant DNA work." . . . . the Recombinant DNA work was sponsored under grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the American Cancer Society. The latter two agencies have released their rights in the invention to the NIH so that the invention can be administered by Stanford pursuant to its Institutional Patent Agreement with the NIH. . . . We are very interested in moving rapidly to determine the applications of this widely significant technology. . . "; no attachments to letter in file

Signed letter dated October 3, 1975 from Kenneth Imatani, Research Assistant, Office of the Vice President for Business and Finance at Stanford to Harry Robinson, Merck & Company, bcc Boyer and SNC, "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; text, "As agreed in our conversation of yesterday, I am sending you two articles which describe both scientific and potential commercial applications of the recombinant DNA process. Also, attached is a table which identifies particular fields of industrial microbiology in which potential commercial applications may lie. The enclosed material is being provided on a non-confidential basis, and we would very much appreciate your comments on developing a plan for bringing this process forward to public use and benefit. . . ."; attached is signed letter dated September 30, 1975 from John A. Zderic, Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. to Kenneth Imatani, handwritten at top right "1. NJR, 2. JKP, 3. FILE 74-43 xcc Boyer Cohen" and date stamped at bottom right, "STANFORD UNIVERSITY OCT ? 1975 TECHNOLOGY LICENSING"; re commercial applications, "Unfortunately, this is an area of science where Syntex currently has no work in progress, nor do we foresee that we will be in a position to enter this highly technical field in the near term future. . . ."

Unsigned letter dated October 3, 1975 from SNC to Bertram I. Rowland, cc Niels Reimers; text begins, "Niels has sent along the copy of your letter of October 2, and the accompanying rejection of our claims to the composition. The law may be "quite nebulous" in this area, but if it is primarily based on a "factual consideration" as you indicate, the patent examiner is totally wrong.", continues with details for 17 lines, and concludes, "Having spent so much time with you and with Stanford in attempting to provide the University with appropriate patent coverage, it is damned annoying to have the ignorance of the patent examiner on the subject present a problem of this sort."

Signed letter dated October 3, 1975 from Niels J. Reimers to Herbert W. Boyer and SNC, cc B. I Rowland; text: per attached letter from Bert Rowland, "the claims to the method allowed, but the claims to the composition rejected. My inclination is to go along with Bert's recommendation to let the patent issue with method claims only. We can then refile for the composition claims depending on whether we have a good argument to support the composition claims. I should observe from a "marketing" point of view, the composition claims are normally more valuable than method claims; thus it may be important to develop the "good argument"., any comments appreciated; attached is signed two-page letter dated October 2, 1975 from Bertram I. Rowland to Niels J. Reimers, cc SNC, handwritten at top of p. 1: "xcc Boyer Cohen 10/3" and date stamped at bottom of p. 1: "STANFORD UNIVERSITY OCT 3 1975 TECHNOLOGY LICENSING"; text: rec'd. "Office Action in the subject application, with the claims to the method allowed, but the claims to the composition rejected. . . . This area of the law is quite nebulous and is primarily based on a factual consideration. That is, what is the likelihood of an in vitro plasmid forming a homoduplex with an in vivo plasmid. The second consideration is how would one prove that the plasmid was formed in vivo or in vitro. . . . my recommendation is to allow the claims to the method issue as a patent and refile the application and continue prosecution as to the remaining claims. . . . I look forward to hearing from you."

October 2, 1975 letter catalogued in preceding row with "File Reimers" handwritten by SNC at top of p. 1; three attachments: 1) USPTO action cover sheet re STANLEY N. COHEN ET AL. "MAILED SEP 11 1975 GROUP 170" from A.E. Tanenholtz to Townsend and Townsend; "Responsive to communication filed 6-13-75 This action is made final."; Part I of form is unmarked, Part II lists Claims 1-12 allowed and Claims 13-26 rejected; attached is a two-page opinion dated September 16, 1981 by Alvin E. Tanenholtz, Primary Examiner with handwritten notes by SNC; 2) one-page opinion by Alvin E. Tanenholtz, examiner Art Unit 172 dated September 5, 1975, text: "Claim 23 is rejected as indefinite under 35 USC 112. Merely describing the plasmid in terms of what it can combine with is not a compete and adequate description of the plasmid. Claims 13-26 are rejected as unpatentable over each of Chakrabarty and Holloway under 35 USC 102 . . . This rejection is FINAL."; and 3) Townsend and Townsend letterhead envelope addressed to SNC, "Department of Pharmacology, Stanford University", stamped October 2, 1975

Unsigned letter dated "27 August, 1975" from SNC to Clayton Rich, Dean, School of Medicine, Stanford University, "NR47UH" typed at top of letter and "SNC personal" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; text, "Thank you for your recent kind note concerning the molecular cloning procedure and the assignment of my share of royalties to the Dean's Fellowship Fund and for the support of biomedical research at Stanford. I appreciate your taking the time to write. I am enjoying my sabbatical leave here, and am finding that this sabbatical is accomplishing what sabbaticals are supposed to do - - - I am having the opportunity to experience a change of pace and to look at things with a different perspective."

Signed letter dated August 6, 1975 from Clayton Rich to SNC, handwritten near top right are "SNC" and "c to SNC 8-8-75"; text: congratulates SNC "on your recent invention which undoubtly [sic] will be of great assistance in genetic research" thanks decision to name the Dean's Fellowship Fund to support postdoctoral fellows as a recipient of inventor's share and delighted Dept. of Medicine will receive half of University's share of net revenue

Three documents photocopied half size (5.5" X 8.5") and stapled to one half of a file folder: 1) Unsigned letter dated July 30, 1975 from Niels J. Reimers to Josephine Opalka, Office of the General Counsel, University of California, cc SNC and typewritten next to his name: "Enclosed with your copy of this letter to Miss Opalka is a copy of her letter to me of July 11 for your information only." signed "Niels", below that is handwritten: "Just saw your scientific [sic] American article! We also got the $25K from BD today!, at top right of page "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC; letter text: responding to "query in your letter of July regarding the difficulty our patent counsel has had in obtaining waiver of rights", summarizes situation: seven co-authors on papers with Cohen and Boyer, only one (unnamed) has signed waiver drawn up by Bert Rowland, "At present the patent examiner has not raised the issue of possible inventorship by the co-authors. Anticipating the patent examiner Mr Rowland has asked for affidavits detailing the inventorship situation" from Professors Cohen and Boyer . . ."

Three documents photocopied half size (5.5" X 8.5") and stapled to one half of a file folder, continued: 2) signed two-page letter dated July 11, 1975 from Josephine Opalka to Niels J. Reimers, date stamped "STANFORD UNIVERSITY JUL 14 1975 TECHNOLOGY LICENSING", "xcc Cohen" handwritten at top of p. 1 ; text: "Re: PROCESS AND COMPOSITION FOR BIOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL DNA CHIMERAS--Cohen-Boyer I regret the delay in responding to your letter of May 2, 1975, with which you included signature copies of an Agreement covering the referenced invention. The reason for the extended delay is the departure from your original offer, expressed in your letter of August 2, 1974 . . . We interpreted your offer to mean that Stanford would assume all out-of-pocket expenses, deducting them and an appropriate overhead from future royalties prior to making distribution to U.C. Since the agreement you proffered provides for U.C.'s making out-of-pocket payments to Stanford to cover prosecution and related costs, I have had to place the invention in review procedure. This will result in our having to make some revisions in the Agreement. . . . I enclose for your information the comments of one reviewer of the invention. The author's identify is held in confidence . . . ", also has learned certain individuals at Stanford and U.C. have refused to sign waiver of rights. Insofar as this may influence our obtaining or retaining a valid patent, will you please let us have counsel's opinion as to the legal effect of these refusals."

Three documents photocopied half size (5.5" X 8.5") and stapled to one half of a file folder, continued: 3) one-page report catalogued in Row 373

Unsigned letter dated July 30, 1975 from Niels J Reimers to Josephine Opalka; same letter is catalogued in Row 383, only this one is full-size and has handwritten "c to SNC 8-1-75"

Signed letter dated July 23, 1975 from Niels J. Reimers to SNC at "Department of Genetics, John Innes Institute", in upper right of page, "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC; text, received your signed copies of the Agreement and enclosed your copy, "I have advised our accounting people to defer any payments to you until after January 1, 1976 per your request."

Full-size copy of July 11, 1975 two-page letter catalogued in Row 384, on this copy handwritten at top right of p. 1, "sent copy 7-29-75 c to SNC in Engl. 7-31-75, letter is stapled to copy of one page of comments dated July 1, 1975 catalogued in Row 373

Signed memo dated June 20, 1975 from Cassius L. Kirk, Jr. Staff Counsel, Stanford to Niels J. Reimers, "SUBJECT: Royalty Sharing Agreement with Dr. Cohen -- Biologically Functional Molecular DNA Chimeras"; text: attached are two execution copies and an extra copy of a revision of the proposed agreement with Dr. Cohen", endeavored to incorporate substance of changes you discussed re wording of subparagraph 3(a) and "[p]er your suggestion, paragraph 7 has been deleted."; attachment catalogued in Row 390

Attachment to June 20, 1975 memo catalogued in Row 389: signed memo dated June 19, 1975 from Cassius L. Kirk, Jr. to Niels J. Reimers, "SUBJECT: Royalty Sharing Agreement with Dr. Cohen"; text: enclosed draft of Royalty Sharing Agreement, "I have left blank the percentage of net royalty to be paid to a charitable organization designated by Dr. Cohen. I assume that Dr. Boyer will want to enter into a similar agreement and was not sure as to the percentage breakdown between Drs. Cohen and Boyer.", as noted in Kirk's April 29, 1975 memo to Reimers [catalogued in Row 395], " . . if Dr. Cohen retains the right to designate the disposition of the royalties he would otherwise have received, the IRS might consider the royalty income to be income of Dr. Cohen. . . . Should the invention turn out to be lucrative, it is conceivable that the amount of royalties contributed by Dr. Cohen would exceed 50 percent of his adjusted gross income. In such a situation, Dr. Cohen would have to pay income tax on a portion of the royalties contributed to charity. However, if Dr. Cohen and his attorney are not concerned about this possible exposure, I do not think the University need be."

Unsigned letter dated June 18, 1975 from SNC to Bertrand I. Roland [sic], handwritten at top right (not by SNC) is "Reimers"; text: thanks for sending copy of amendment filed for patent application, "In general, I think the arguments you have made are reasonable and appropriate. However, I think you could have been a bit stronger about the "improbability" of chimeras formed by natural means between organisms that ordinarily do not exchange genetic information. Based on all that is known in molecular biology, the likelihood of such an event occurring may be even less than "infinitely small". By definition, organisms that do not exchange genetic information cannot form molecular hybrids."

Unsigned letter dated June 9, 1975 from SNC to Niels Reimers; text, "As we discussed by telephone, I would like you to use your standard contract form in the assignment of the molecular cloning patent to Stanford by me, except as follows:" then 11 lines detailing distribution, also suggests idea for usage of funds going to Dept. of Medicine, "I plan to leave for England around June 23rd. We really need to complete arrangement prior to that time. . . ."

Three letters stapled together: 1) unsigned letter dated June 5, 1975 from SNC to Bert Roland [sic]; text, "I plan to leave for England on my sabbatical on June 20. I hope the information I provided for you in my recent letters will be suitable, but if not we should plan to talk before I leave."; 2) unsigned two-page letter dated May 20, 1975 from SNC to Bertrand I. Roland [sic], "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of p. 1; same text as copy of letter catalogued in Row 156, except that second-to-last paragraph typed twice in this letter and second instance crossed out; 3) another unsigned two-page letter dated May 20, 1975 from SNC to Bertrand I. Roland [sic]; text begins, "I've reviewed the information sent to you by the Patent Office Examiner. I'm not sure that I understand all of the points the examiner has made in connection with his rejection of our claims 10-26 of the patent, but want to respond on the basis of what I think he is saying.", rest of letter contains response

Signed letter dated May 12, 1976 from Bertram I. Rowland to SNC, paper has two large blue ink spots; text: re patent application, "Please find enclosed materials per your request."; no attachments to letter in file

Signed memo dated May 2, 1975 from Niels Reimers to SNC, CC C. L. Kirk, Jr.; text: two topics, attached memo from Cash Kirk and two alternate forms of waiver re royalty income, also three execution copies plus extra copy of Assignment of Application for Patent attached; three attachments: 1) signed memo dated April 29, 1975 from Cassius L. Kirk, Jr. to Niels Reimers, "SUBJECT: Release of Rights to Receive Royalty Income (Process and Composition for Biologically Functional Molecular DNA Chimeras", date stamped, "STANFORD UNIVERSITY APR 30 1975 TECHNOLOGY LICENSING"; text: "Attached are two forms of Waiver by Dr. Cohen of his right to receive royalty income from the above referenced invention. These forms include suggestions made by Gordy Weber in a telephone conversation this morning. . . You will note that the longer form contains a statement as to the understanding by Dr. Cohen as to the disposition to be made by the University of the royalty income which would otherwise have been received by him. Gordy advises that there is some risk that by including this paragraph the IRS might consider the royalty income to be income of Dr. Cohen. . . . Please have Dr. Cohen sign the original of either of the enclosed forms (but not both)."; this memo quoted in June 19, 1975 memo catalogued in Row 390; 2) unsigned longer waiver, this waiver also catalogued in Row 405; 3) unsigned shorter waiver

Two letters stapled together: 1) signed letter dated April 28, 1975 from Niels J. Reimers to Donald W. Carlin, Kraftco Corporation, cc H.W. Boyer and SNC, "File Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; text: "You will recall my communication with you in November about the genetic engineering work from Stanford. Enclosed are copies of two articles from the December 1974 and April 1975 issues of Bioscience which will be useful for background regarding the genetic engineering work. Additionally, several practical applications are indicated. . . "; 2) signed letter dated April 28, 1975 from Niels J. Reimers to Bernard A. Shoor, Becton, Dickinson Electronic Laboratory, cc H.W. Boyer and SNC; text: same articles enclosed as in previous letter, mentions they contain "potential practical applications"

signed letter dated April 15, 1975 from Niels J. Reimers to Bernard A. Shoor, Becton, Dickinson Electronic Laboratory, cc SNC, "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; text: "You will recall our recent telephone conversation about the "genetic engineering" discovery from Stanford. . . . ", enclosed are three PNAS reprints "which describe the work. I also refer you to recent articles in Science (14 March 1975), Chemical and Engineering News (10 March 1975), and Chemical and Engineering News 3 February 1975) [sic]. . . . I will look forward to hearing from you about Becton, Dickinson's interest in this work."; no attachments to letter in file

Signed letter dated "18th February, 1975.", "Dictated by and signed on behalf of Dr. K. Murray." of University of Edinburgh to N.J. Reimers, "xcc Cohen Berg Massy" handwritten at top right of page, date stamped "STANFORD UNIVERSITY FEB 25 1975 TECHNOLOGY LICENSING"; text, "Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 3rd February and various enclosures clarifying the situation described by Dr. Morrow in his letter of January 23rd to me. It was very considerate of you to go to all this trouble."; paper has been dented at top by a paper clip, but no attachments in file

Signed memo dated February 10, 1975 from Niels Reimers to William Massy, cc H.W. Boyer, SNC, "File Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; entire text: "Last Thursday I met with Paul Berg, David Hogness, Stan Cohen, Charles Yanofsky, and Ronald Davis in Professor Berg's office. The subject was the perception of Stanford's motives by the scientific community in filing a patent application for the "gene transplant" work, while at the same time advising the scientific community to "go slow" with respect to related research. A concern also was the scientific reputation of Dr. Cohen and Dr. Boyer of the University of California, a co-inventor with Dr. Cohen. Our patent attorney had innocently touched off the above concerns by sending out a letter to a number of Dr. Cohen's and Dr. Boyer's colleagues asking them to sign affidavits that they were not co-inventors. The letter gave the mistaken impression that Drs. Cohen and Boyer were personally filing the patent application and would receive material benefit. Hurry-up phone calls, letters and telegrams were sent out but not before the situation was made known to quite a number of people. We seem to have been able to defuse the situation with respect to Drs. Cohen and Boyer. Neither are claiming any financial return from any possible revenue which might be received from the invention. There continues some concern with respect to the perception of Stanford's and U.C.'s role in this matter and several courses of action were discussed. It was considered appropriate that a meeting be scheduled with you to discuss these possible solutions which include: 1) proceeding as before 2) turning the invention over to Research Corporation and 3) abandoning the patent. I'll be in touch with you later to schedule such a meeting."

Signed letter dated January 28, 1975 from Bertram I. Rowland to SNC, cc: Herbert W. Boyer, "Re: Pat. appln. for PROCESS AND COMPOSITION FOR BIOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL MOLECULAR DNA CHIMERAS - S. Cohen and H. Boyer"; text: "Enclosed is a copy of the letter I wrote to the co-authors of the above reference patent application clarifying the situation to them. A xerox copy of your letter dated January 22nd is also enclosed."; no attachments to letter in file

Signed letter dated January 23, 1975 from John F. Morrow, Carnegie Institution of Washington to SNC and Boyer, cc: Bertram I. Rowland, "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; letter catalogued in Row 154

Unsigned letter dated January 22, 1975 from SNC to Bertram I. Rowland; letter catalogued in Rows 153, 403, and 404

Signed letter dated January 22, 1975 from SNC to Bertram I. Rowland, stamped "RECEIVED JAN 24 1975 TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND PENINSULA OFFICE"; letter catalogued in Rows 153, 402, and 404

Unsigned letter dated January 22, 1975 from SNC to Bertram I. Rowland, handwritten at bottom (not by SNC): "copies sent to: John F. Morrow, Charles Yanofsky, Herb Boyer, Donald Helinski"; letter catalogued in Rows 153, 402, and 403

Unsigned longer version of SNC's Waiver of right to receive royalty income, "Reimers file" handwritten by SNC at top right of page; this unsigned waiver also catalogued in Row 395

Two documents stapled together: 1) the extra copy of Assignment of Application for Patent referred to in May 2, 1975 memo catalogued in Row 395; three pages; pp. 1-2 "ASSIGNMENT OF APPLICATION FOR PATENT" with unsigned signature lines on p. 2 for Boyer, SNC, and Robert R. Augsburger, Vice President for Business and Finance, Stanford, p. 3 contains text for notarizing of all three signatures; 2) one-page unsigned Royalty Sharing Agreement described in the memo dated June 19, 1975 from Cassius L. Kirk, Jr. to Niels J. Reimers