Ex parte RAULSTON et al. - Page 5

              Appeal No. 1996-3887                                                                                        
              Application 07/883,434                                                                                      
                     Bergy provides guidance here as well.  As pointed out by appellants, the court in                    
              Bergy agreed that “a pure strain of a microorganism was patentable as ‘the product of a                     
              microbiologist’, and ruled that a claim limited to a pure culture of a naturally occurring                  
              microorganism: ‘clearly does not define a product of nature’ [] and thus constituted                        
              statutory subject matter” (Reply Brief, paper no. 16).  Similar limitations are at issue here.              
              In its broadest aspect, the claimed composition comprises Steinernema riobravis                             
              “isolated from the environment” in combination with an inert carrier.  Claim 46 further                     
              specifies that the composition comprises ”isolated and substantially pure” Steinernema                      
              riobravis; claim 47 specifies that the nematodes are “isolated in substantially pure form.”                 
                     In determining whether these limitations preclude interpreting the claimed                           
              composition as a product of nature, we begin with the proposition that “the language                        
              employed [in a claim] must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but always in light of the                       
              teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be                      
              interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.”  In re Moore,              
              439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971) (footnote omitted).                                      
                     The phrase “isolated from the environment” is not expressly defined in the                           
              specification, but the process of isolating the nematode from soil samples is distinguished                 
              from its initial recovery (or excavation) from the Lower Rio Grande Valley.  For example, at                
              pages 5 and 6, the specification teaches:                                                                   
                     As described in the Examples herein, Steinernema riobravis may be initially                          
                     recovered from soil samples taken from corn fields . . . Following isolation                         


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007