Ex Parte Friddle et al - Page 23


                Appeal No. 2005-0731                                                                       Page 23                             
                Application No. 09/974,712                                                                                                     

                which requires that a patentable invention also be useful and fully enabled, nor is it the                                     
                standard that has been consistently applied by the courts.                                                                     
                         In addition, the flood of DNA patents that would result from adoption of                                              
                Appellants’ rule could doom the potential contribution of microarrays to biological                                            
                research.  Appellants argue that “[g]iven the widespread utility of such ‘gene chip’                                           
                methods using public domain gene sequence information, there can be little doubt that                                          
                the use of the presently described novel sequences would have great utility in such                                            
                DNA chip applications.”  Appeal Brief, page 19.  “[T]here is an entire industry based on                                       
                the use of gene sequences or fragments thereof in a gene chip format.”  Page 20.                                               
                         The practical effect of Appellants’ utility standard, however, would be that making                                   
                a microarray with 1000 genes represented on it would require investigating each of the                                         
                DNA sequences (and subsequences) on the gene chip to ensure that it was not the                                                
                subject of someone else’s patent.  For each of the DNAs that was the subject of                                                
                someone else’s patent claim, a license would have to be negotiated – potentially                                               
                thousands of such negotiations for the finished product.  These transaction costs would                                        
                have to be incurred for each new product that an aspiring gene chip manufacturer                                               
                wished to market.  The industry gridlock likely to result has been termed a “tragedy of                                        
                the anticommons:”                                                                                                              
                         By conferring monopolies in discoveries, patents necessarily increase                                                 
                         prices and restrict use—a cost society pays to motivate invention and                                                 
                         disclosure.  The tragedy of the anticommons refers to the more complex                                                
                         obstacles that arise when a user needs access to multiple patented inputs                                             
                         to create a single useful product.  Each upstream patent allows its owner                                             
                         to set up another tollbooth on the road to product development, adding to                                             
                         the cost and slowing the pace of downstream biomedical innovation.                                                    







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007