Ex parte RILEY et al. - Page 4




             Appeal No. 95-1083                                                                                      
             Application No. 08/004,444                                                                              
                    For over 200 years, the concept of utility has occupied a central role in our                    
                    patent system.  See Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 529, 148 USPQ 689,                          
                    693 (1966).  Indeed, “[t]he basic quid pro quo contemplated by the                               
                    Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is                                  
                    the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility.”                   
                    Id. at 534, 148 USPQ at 695.  Consequently, it is well established that a                        
                    patent may not be granted to an invention unless substantial or practical                        
                    utility for the invention has been discovered and disclosed.  See Cross v. Iizuka,               
                    753 F.2d 1040, 1044, 224 USPQ 739, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                         
             It was stated in Genentech Inc. v. Nova Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366, 42 USPQ2d                     
             1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1995):                                                                            
                    Patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an                          
                    invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be                     
                    workable.  See Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 536, 148 USPQ 689, 696                           
                    (1966) (stating, in context of the utility requirement, that “a patent is not a                  
                    hunting license.  It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its                    
                    successful conclusion.)                                                                          
             Whether an issue of utility is raised under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112, first paragraph, the              
             initial burden is on the Patent and Trademark Office to establish reasons why one skilled in            
             the art would not believe the objected statements of utility and/or enablement in the                   
             specification. In re Brana 51 F.3d 1560, 1566, 34 USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1995);                   
             In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391, 183 USPQ 288, 297 (CCPA 1974); In re Marzocchi,                      
             439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971).                                                       
                    In setting forth the basis of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101,  the examiner                 
             states (Answer, page 4):                                                                                
                    [O]ne of ordinary skill would not accept the claimed utility of treating and preventing          
             inflammatory bowel disease, or any of the other disclosed diseases including cancer, in a               
             host in the absence of adequate evidence in support of the same.                                        

                                                         4                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007