Appeal No. 2004-1761 Page 25
Application No. 10/044,807
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. We therefore affirm the rejections for lack of utility.
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 )
EG/jlb
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007