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

« Dr. Chris Mason Responds to Blog Posts on Genome Medicine Article -- Updated | Main | A Response to Dr. Mason's "Rebuttal" to Criticisms of His Genomics Medicine Article »

April 11, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017c388ccab9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Primer on Claim Construction -- Comments on Dr. Mason's Response:

Comments

Don,

Thanks to you for explaining how patent claims work in the nucleotide world. Also, thanks for noting the problem with Dr. Mason's characterization of what Claim 1 of the '422 patent covered. Even I with only an undergraduate chemistry background understood that 2'-deoxy-2-fluoro pyrimidine nucleotides were not naturally occurring.

I'm not saying we patent attorneys don't have some responsibility for the confusion over what these nucleotide patent claims cover. See Kevin's article above yours. But what I'm concerned about is that the views of these scientists, academic or otherwise, on what these nucleotide patent claims cover is being given undue credibility that they frankly don't deserve, be it in court cases or by the popular media. That's my biggest concern and beef here.

" Kepler et al. also suggested that "if human genes were random strings of nucleotides, one would expect a human gene to contain an average of 15 15-mers claimed under the ['282] patent," and in fact found that 80% of 713 human mRNAs deposited in 1994 (the earliest effective filing date of the '282 patent is August 12, 1994) contained at least one of the claimed 15mers."

Do the scientists/patent experts at Patent Docs agree? If so, why not just say so and point out that this claim is certainly invalid? And keep reminding people of that.

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