Ex Parte Mathur et al - Page 9


                 Appeal No. 2003-2017                                                         Page 9                    
                 Application No. 09/802,116                                                                             

                        The Court took pains to note that it did not “mean to disparage the                             
                 importance of contributions to the fund of scientific information short of the                         
                 invention of something ‘useful,’” and that it was not “blind to the prospect that                      
                 what now seems without ‘use’ may tomorrow command the grateful attention of                            
                 the public.”   Id. at 535-36, 148 USPQ at 696.  Those considerations did not sway                      
                 the Court, however, because “a patent is not a hunting license.  It is not a reward                    
                 for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.”  Id.                                  
                        Subsequent decisions of the CCPA and the Court of Appeals for the                               
                 Federal Circuit have added further layers of judicial gloss to the meaning of                          
                 § 101’s utility requirement.  The first opinion of the CCPA applying Brenner was                       
                 In re Kirk, 376 F.2d 936, 153 USPQ 48 (CCPA 1967).  The invention claimed in                           
                 Kirk was a set of steroid derivatives said to have valuable biological properties                      
                 and to be of value “in the furtherance of steroidal research and in the application                    
                 of steroidal materials to veterinary or medical practice.”  Id. at 938, 153 USPQ at                    
                 50.  The claims had been rejected for lack of utility.  In response, the applicants                    
                 submitted an affidavit which purportedly “show[ed] that one skilled in the art                         
                 would be able to determine the biological uses of the claimed compounds by                             
                 routine tests.”  Id. at 939, 153 USPQ at 51.                                                           
                        The court held that “nebulous expressions [like] ‘biological activity’ or                       
                 ‘biological properties’” did not adequately convey how to use the claimed                              
                 compounds.  Id. at 941, 153 USPQ at 52.  Nor did the applicants’ affidavit help                        
                 their case:  “the sum and substance of the affidavit appear[ed] to be that one of                      
                 ordinary skill in the art would know ‘how to use’ the compounds to find out in the                     





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007