08.08.2013 Views

The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral

The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral

The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

2121.03 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE<br />

2121.03 Plant Genetics - What<br />

Constitutes'Enabling Pri<strong>or</strong> Art<br />

THOSE OF ORDINARY SKILL MUST BE<br />

ABLE TO GROW AND CULTIVATE THE<br />

PLANT<br />

When the claims are drawn to plants, the reference,<br />

combined with knowledge in the pri<strong>or</strong> art.i.must<br />

enable one of <strong>or</strong>dinary skill in the art to reproduce the<br />

plant. In reLeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365<br />

(CCPA 1962) (National Rose Society Annual of<br />

England and varions other catalogues showed col<strong>or</strong><br />

pictures of the claimed roses and disclosed that applicant<br />

had raised the roses. <strong>The</strong> publications were published<br />

m<strong>or</strong>e than I year bef<strong>or</strong>e applicant's filing date.<br />

<strong>The</strong> court held that the publications did not place the<br />

rose in the public domain. Inf<strong>or</strong>mation on the grafting<br />

process reqnired to reproduce the rose was not<br />

included in the publications and such .inf<strong>or</strong>mation was<br />

necessary f<strong>or</strong> those of <strong>or</strong>dinary skill in the art (plant<br />

breeders) to reproduce the rose.), Compare Ex parte<br />

Thomson, 24 USPQ2d 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.<br />

1992) (Seeds were commercially available m<strong>or</strong>e than<br />

1 year pri<strong>or</strong> to applicant's filing date.One of <strong>or</strong>dinary<br />

skill in the art could grow the claimed cotton cultivar<br />

from the commercially available seeds. Thus, the publications<br />

describing the cotton cultivar had "enabled<br />

disclosures." <strong>The</strong> Board distinguished In re LeGrice<br />

by finding that the catalogue picture of the rose of In<br />

re LeGrice was the only evidence in that base. <strong>The</strong>re<br />

was no evidence of commercial availability in<br />

enabling f<strong>or</strong>m since the asexually reproduced rose<br />

could not be reproduced from seed. <strong>The</strong>ref<strong>or</strong>e, the<br />

public would not have possession of the rose by its<br />

picture alone, but the public would havepossession of<br />

the cotton cultivar based on the publications and the<br />

availability of the seeds.).<br />

2121.04 Apparatus and Articles - What<br />

Constitutes Enabling Pri<strong>or</strong> Art<br />

PICTURES MAY CONSTITUTE AN "ENA­<br />

BLING DISCLOSURE"<br />

Pictures and drawings may be sufficiently enabling<br />

to put the public in the possession of the article pictured.<br />

<strong>The</strong>ref<strong>or</strong>e, such an enabling picture may be<br />

used to reject claims to the article. However, the pic-<br />

August 2001 2100-60<br />

ture must show all the claimed structural features and<br />

how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d<br />

812 (2d Cir. 1928). See also M!'EP § 2125 f<strong>or</strong> a discussion<br />

of drawings as pri<strong>or</strong> art.<br />

2122 Discussion of Utility in.the<br />

Pri<strong>or</strong> Art<br />

UTILITYNEED NOT BE DISCLOSED IN REF­<br />

ERENCE<br />

In <strong>or</strong>der to constitute anticipat<strong>or</strong>y pri<strong>or</strong> art, a reference<br />

mustidentically disclose the claimed compound,<br />

but no utility need be disclosed by the reference. In re<br />

Schoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122, 22 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed.<br />

Cir. 1992) (<strong>The</strong> application claimed compounds used<br />

in ophthalmic compositions to treat dry eye syndrome.<br />

<strong>The</strong> examiner found a printed publication<br />

which disclosed the claimed compound but did not<br />

disclose a use f<strong>or</strong> the compound. <strong>The</strong> court found that<br />

the claim was anticipated since the compound and a<br />

process of making it was taught by the reference; <strong>The</strong><br />

court explained that "no utility need be disclosed f<strong>or</strong> a<br />

reference to be anticipat<strong>or</strong>y of a claim to an old compound."<br />

964 F.2d at 1124, 22USPQ2d at 1673. It is<br />

enough that the claimed compound is taught by the<br />

reference.).<br />

2123 Rejection Over Pri<strong>or</strong> Art's Broad<br />

Disclosure Instead of Preferred<br />

Embodiments<br />

PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART<br />

FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN<br />

"<strong>The</strong> use of patents as references is not limited to<br />

what the patentees describe as their own inventions <strong>or</strong><br />

to the problems with which they are concerned. <strong>The</strong>y<br />

are part of the literature of the art.relevant f<strong>or</strong> all they<br />

contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,<br />

216 USPQ 1038,1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In<br />

re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,<br />

777 (CCPA 1968».<br />

A reference may be.relied upon f<strong>or</strong> all that it would<br />

have reasonably suggested to one having <strong>or</strong>dinary<br />

skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.<br />

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Lab<strong>or</strong>at<strong>or</strong>ies, 874 F.2d 804,<br />

10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert.denied, 493 U.S,<br />

975 (1989). See also Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v.<br />

Rockwell International C<strong>or</strong>p., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!