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

« SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) | Main | Op-Eds in The Scientist Debate Impact of the AIA »

September 04, 2013

Comments

Kevin, this is rather late. But I am curious to learn what claim language you think would be permissible, based on the limited disclosure in the patent.

Would "...a polypeptide having the biological activity of 2,4-D oxygenase which is capable of being expressed in a plant..." be allowable? Assuming no definition in the specification, would the claim cover the accused product? If not, would a definition in the specification that said the activity was degrading 2,4D be too broad for the claim to be allowed without more supporting disclosure?

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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