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.

Become a Fan

« Porcine Breed Diversity in China | Main | In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) »

February 03, 2015

Comments

Is the Office trying to say that a “natural product” is a “natural phenomenon”?

This is very odd since the definition of a “natural phenomenon” does not include compositions of matter.

Definition from wikipedia
“A natural phenomenon is an observable event which is not man-made. Examples include: sunrise, weather, fog, thunder, tornadoes; biological processes, decomposition, germination; physical processes, wave propagation, erosion; tidal flow, and natural disasters such as electromagnetic pulses, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes”

Vocabulary.com
phenomenon: any state or process known through the senses

Did anybody bring this point up?

It appears the Office is messing with our minds by using the terms “product of nature”; “natural phenomenon” and “natural product” interchangeably.

They are not the same.

Don,

All this nonsensical proposing-revising-proposing by the USPTO on this Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility just proves how absurd and broken the Alice/Myriad/Mayo tests are. The Royal Nine should be held accountable for mucking up this area of patent law by having to pay for all this wasted effort.

I wonder if in the whole history of claim drafting, anyone has ever actually drafted a claim along the lines of "a method for X, wherein X is governed by natural phenomenon Y, the method comprising applying Y."

Why does the PTO give "apply it" as a tangible example of something that fails the "significantly more" test, when no one in their right mind would ever write "apply it" in the first place?

Fog is not a process, but a composition of matter.

"States" and "process" are not the same thing, and "state" very well includes products.

But let me also add, that the focus is more than just "natural product" and that "natural product" does not mean the product created with constituents that themselves are natural products.

All of this can be easily understood with the notion of the "warehouse of nature" theme that the Court has used to indicate those THINGS that are off limits (here, "things" is capitalized to indicate both objects and processes).

I am not sure what all the "wondering" is about...

Just Wondering, see the Supreme Court Myriad decision for the conflation of "natural phenomenon" with "natural product."

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2016

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