Ex Parte Yu et al - Page 8


             Appeal No. 2004-1761                                                   Page 8                     
             Application No. 10/044,807                                                                        

                   The Kirk court held that an earlier CCPA decision, holding that a chemical                  
             compound meets the requirements of § 101 if it is useful to chemists doing research on            
             steroids, had effectively been overruled by Brenner.  “There can be no doubt that the             
             insubstantial, superficial nature of vague, general disclosures or arguments of ‘useful in        
             research’ or ‘useful as building blocks of value to the researcher’ was recognized, and           
             clearly rejected, by the Supreme Court” in Brenner.  See Kirk, 376 F.2d at 945, 153               
             USPQ at 55.                                                                                       
                   More recently, in In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 26 USPQ2d 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1993),            
             the Federal Circuit considered the degree of specificity required to show utility for a           
             claim to polypropylene.  The U.S. application on appeal in Ziegler claimed priority to a          
             German application filed in 1954.  “In the German application, Ziegler disclosed only             
             that solid granules of polypropylene could be pressed into a flexible film with a                 
             characteristic infrared spectrum and that the polypropylene was ‘plastic-like.’”  Id. at          
             1203, 26 USPQ2d at 1605.  “Ziegler did not assert any practical use for the                       
             polypropylene or its film, and Ziegler did not disclose any characteristics of the                
             polypropylene or its film that demonstrated its utility.”  Id.  The court held that the           
             German application did not satisfy the requirements of § 101 and therefore could not be           
             relied on to overcome a rejection based on an intervening reference.  See id., 26                 
             USPQ2d at 1606.  “[At] best, Ziegler was on the way to discovering a practical utility for        
             polypropylene at the time of the filing of the German application; but in that application        
             Ziegler had not yet gotten there.”  Id., 26 USPQ2d at 1605.                                       
                   On the other hand, the CCPA reversed a rejection for lack of utility in In re Jolles,       
             628 F.2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 (CCPA 1980).  The applicant in Jolles claimed                         





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007