Ex Parte Starling et al - Page 4


                Appeal No. 2005-2121                                                                                 Page 4                    
                Application No. 09/745,605                                                                                                     

                2005).  The Fisher court interpreted Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689                                             
                (1966), as rejecting a “de minimis view of utility.”  421 F.3d at 1370, 76 USPQ2d at                                           
                1229.  The Fisher court held that § 101 requires a utility that is both substantial and                                        
                specific.  Id. at 1371, 76 USPQ2d at 1229.  The court held that disclosing a substantial                                       
                utility means “show[ing] that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its                                         
                current form, not that it may be useful at some future date after further research.  Simply                                    
                put, to satisfy the ‘substantial’ utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that                                     
                claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.”  Id., 76                                   
                USPQ2d at 1230.                                                                                                                
                         The court held that a specific utility is “a use which is not so vague as to be                                       
                meaningless.”  Id.  In other words, “in addition to providing a ‘substantial’ utility, an                                      
                asserted use must show that the claimed invention can be used to provide a well-                                               
                defined and particular benefit to the public.”  Id.                                                                            
                         The Fisher court held that none of the uses asserted by the applicant in that case                                    
                were either substantial or specific.  The uses were not substantial because “all of Fisher’s                                   
                asserted uses represent merely hypothetical possibilities, objectives which the claimed                                        
                ESTs, or any EST for that matter, could possibly achieve, but none for which they have                                         
                been used in the real world.”  Id. at 1373, 76 USPQ2d at 1231.  “Consequently, because                                         
                Fisher failed to prove that its claimed ESTs can be successfully used in the seven ways                                        
                disclosed in the ‘643 application, we have no choice but to conclude that the claimed                                          
                ESTs do not have a ‘substantial’ utility under § 101.”  Id. at 1374, 76 USPQ2d at 1232.                                        
                         “Furthermore, Fisher’s seven asserted uses are plainly not ‘specific.’  Any EST                                       
                transcribed from any gene in the maize genome has the potential to perform any one of                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007