marker-assisted selection in wheat

410Marker-assisted selection – Current status and future perspectives in crops, livestock, forestry and fishto explain the new, non-obvious patentablesubject matter in a way that clearly distinguishesits novel characteristics from allother available solutions. This explanation iscalled a patent “claim”, and using the wordsof the patent drafter a claim will describethe “metes and bounds” (Gallagher, 2002)of the invention. Patent drafters are usuallylicensed patent agents, patent attorneys,scientists working for legal firms in thiscapacity or, rarely, the inventors themselves.Drafting patent claims is an arcaneart that requires detailed knowledge of thescientific and technical basis of the inventionas well as a current understanding ofthe state-of-the-art, regarding the judicialinterpretation of claims, in the context ofnational patent law.One patent can have many claims. Infact, patent law requires that every patentmust contain at least one claim. Each claimis “directed to” an invention, ranging fromits broad use, to the most narrow use forwhich an inventor may wish to seek rights.For example, a broad claim could be forthe use of an enzyme class to perform atype of function (where this combinationis not found in nature). A narrow claimcould then specify the particular enzyme,the quantity of enzyme and/or the specificfunction. A distinction should be madebetween a patent application (often numberedin a different style such as the “WO”designation for PCT-filed patent applications),and an issued patent (generallynumbered with a country prefix, e.g. CA2172863, a patent issued by the CanadianPatent Office) to avoid confusion.Patent applications contain claims thatare untested and unexamined and theseclaims are therefore often very broad.During the patent prosecution process,the patent examiner seeks to limit claimsto the new invention held by the applicantat the time the patent was filed. The claimsare accompanied by written descriptionsthat would allow someone else familiarwith technology in the same general area(“person having ordinary skill in-the-art”or “PHOSITA”), to understand how tomake and carry out or “work” the claimedinnovation. This useful written descriptionaccompanying claims is directed by law toprovide “enablement”, and is a requiredpart of a patent disclosure, in order to makethe invention “available to the public”(this is part of the social contract to balanceprivate rights and public good). Thewritten descriptions can also be importantfor interpreting the exact limits of patentclaims. Patent rights are given to inventionsthat cover the reduction of ideas and conceptsto practical use, and these rights mayalso extend to other treatments/variationsthat are of a nature sufficiently similar tobe equivalent to the patented innovation.Such a “doctrine of equivalents”, as it iscalled in patent lingo, means that ideas/concepts that are the basis of the usefulinnovation are a part of the patent claimcoverage. Therefore, it is often stated thatpatents cover conceptual ideas as well asthe practical application of the idea (seewww.dwalkerlaw.com/patent.asp). Thismeans that it is often difficult to discernwhether a party is committing infringementwithout the interpretation of a court.Literal infringement, whereby the inventionis practised exactly as it is described ina claim, can usually be identified without aproblem. Equivalent infringement is oftenused as a strategic business tool by eitherthe patent rights holder and/or the infringer.This confusion over the exact limits ofpatent claims can often lead to companymergers or buy-outs, just to minimize therisk associated with the IPRs (Fulton andGiannakas, 2001; Kattan, 2002).