Ex Parte Yu et al - Page 21


             Appeal No. 2004-1761                                                  Page 21                     
             Application No. 10/044,807                                                                        

                   We note that this application is one of several on appeal that share the same               
             assignee.3  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.  It would therefore appear that 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                 

                                                                                                               
             3 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  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007