Appeal No. 2004-1040 Page 26
Application No. 09/770,643
Summary
The basic quid pro quo of the patent system requires disclosure of an invention
having substantial utility. Appellants’ disclosure in this case does not provide a specific
benefit in currently available form, and therefore lacks the substantial utility required by
35 U.S.C. § 101. The rejections for lack of utility are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Toni R. Scheiner )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7 Heller et al., “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research,” Science, Vol. 280,
pp. 698-701 (1998). Accessible online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007