E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories -- What Should We Do? (or Can These Claims Be Saved?) | Main | Court Report - Part II »

March 27, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20163035cbb26970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USPTO Issues Preliminary Guidance on Mayo v. Prometheus:

Comments

Someone acting in a legal capacity should know how to give proper credit. Citations should be made when one lifts whole sections from someone else's work.

"In addition, to be patent-eligible, a claim that includes an exception should include other elements or combination of elements such that, in practice, the claimed product or process amounts to significantly more than a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea with conventional steps specified at a high level of generality appended thereto."

Don,

The Examining Corps, as well as prosecuting patent attorneys are going to have an Excedrin-sized headache trying to carry out that suggestion. That's what happens when you have the Supreme Court ignore or conveniently overlook binding precedent in Diehr that says do the exact opposite (and rightly so).

It would be helpful if you would post the exact claim language from the case in this notice.

Meh, not really EG. It usually isn't that hard unless a %$#% drafted the thing. Which does happen from time to time of course, but you know how it goes. Those cases will be a headache anyway.

Anne:

Sorry, I omitted the text of the claim because Kevin had provided it several times over the past week. Here is claim 1:

1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:
(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and


(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder,


wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and


wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject.

Thanks for reading,

Don

Not gonna help Don.

So... would this fly?

1. A method of treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, the method comprising administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder in an amount sufficient to provide a level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x10^8 red blood cells and less than about 1 nmol per 8x10^8 red blood cells in the bloodstream of said subject.

Why, or why not?

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31