Ex Parte LEE - Page 6


                 Appeal No.  2004-1369                                                         Page 6                  
                 Application No.  08/966,233                                                                           
                 was a claim to “a chemical process which yields an already known product                              
                 whose utility—other than as a possible object of scientific inquiry—ha[d] not yet                     
                 been evidenced.”  Id. at 529, 148 USPQ at 693.  The Patent Office had rejected                        
                 the claimed process for lack of utility, on the basis that the product produced by                    
                 the claimed process had not been shown to be useful.  See id. at 521-22, 148                          
                 USPQ at 690.  On appeal, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed,                            
                 on the basis that “where a claimed process produces a known product it is not                         
                 necessary to show utility for the product.”  Id. at 522, 148 USPQ at 691.                             
                        The Brenner Court noted that although § 101 requires that an invention be                      
                 “useful,” that “simple, everyday word can be pregnant with ambiguity when                             
                 applied to the facts of life.”   Id. at 529, 148 USPQ at 693.  Thus,                                  
                        [it] is not remarkable that differences arise as to how the test of                            
                        usefulness is to be applied to chemical processes.  Even if we                                 
                        knew precisely what Congress meant in 1790 when it devised the                                 
                        “new and useful” phraseology and in subsequent re-enactments of                                
                        the test, we should have difficulty in applying it in the context of                           
                        contemporary chemistry, where research is as comprehensive as                                  
                        man’s grasp and where little or nothing is wholly beyond the pale of                           
                        “utility”—if that word is given its broadest reach.                                            
                 Id. at 530, 148 USPQ at 694.   5                                                                      
                        The Court, finding “no specific assistance in the legislative materials                        
                 underlying § 101,” based its analysis on “the general intent of Congress, the                         
                 purposes of the patent system, and the implications of a decision one way or the                      
                 other.”  Id. at 532, 148 USPQ at 695.  The Court concluded that “[t]he basic quid                     
                 pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent                       

                                                                                                                       
                 5 The invention at issue in Brenner was a process, but the Court expressly noted that its holding     
                 “would apply equally to the patenting of the product produced by the process.”   Id. at 535, 148      
                 USPQ at 695-96.                                                                                       





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007