Ex Parte Turner et al - Page 22


              Appeal No. 2004-1040                                                        Page 22                        
              Application No. 09/770,643                                                                                 

                     We note that this application is one of several on appeal that share the same                       
              assignee.6  In each of these cases, regardless of the specific facts of the case, the                      
              Appellants have asserted the same DNA chip, gene-mapping, and exon splice junction                         
              arguments.  Apparently, Appellants view these potential uses as utilities that can be                      
              asserted for any cDNA they isolate, regardless of how little is known about it, which                      
              (they hope) will nonetheless serve as a basis for patent protection and secure for                         
              Appellants any value that might become apparent in the future, after they or others have                   
              further characterized the claimed products.  This is precisely the type of result that the                 
              Brenner Court sought to avoid by requiring disclosure of a substantial utility to satisfy                  
              § 101.  See 148 U.S. at 535-36, 148 USPQ at 696:  [The Court was not] “blind to the                        
              prospect that what now seems without ‘use’ may tomorrow command the grateful                               
              attention of the public.  But a patent is not a hunting license.  It is not a reward for the               
              search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.”  Id.                                              
                     The polynucleotides of the instant claims may indeed prove to be useful (and                        
              valuable), after the in vivo role of the encoded protein is discovered.  The work required                 
              to confer value on the claimed products, however, remains to be done.  The instant                         
              specification’s disclosure does not justify a grant of patent rights.  See Brenner, 383                    
              U.S. at 534, 148 USPQ at 695:  “[A] process patent in the chemical field, which has not                    
              been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of                        
              knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute.  Until the                     
              process claim has been reduced to production of a product shown to be useful, the                          

                                                                                                                         
              6 Such applications include 09/460,594 (Appeal No. 2003-1528), 09/804,969 (2003-1794); 09/802,116          
              (2003-2017); 09/822,807 (2003-2028); and 09/564,557 (2004-0343).                                           





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007