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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | In re Stepan Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017) »

October 08, 2017

Comments

The representative claims here seem boring, unfortunately.

"I still cannot agree that a patent eligibility issue has anything to do with whether the claims recite new/novel features."

I will make you agree in ten seconds but I predict that you will still resist because you're too proud to admit error.

Consider a claim:

1. A process, comprising correlating [insert sequence here] with a higher likelihood of Schiff's disease.

That's ineligible. You can't claim a correlation or any other fact. Compare:

2. A process comprising [insert new non-obvious step of isolating and reading gene sequence from a human], wherein the sequence is [insert sequence here] and wherein said sequence is correlated with a higher likelihood of Schiff's disease.

That's eligible.

This is a good thing, by the way. It's the way things should be (also the way things are). Last, just so there's no confusion:

3. A process comprising [using old method to identify gene sequence] wherein the sequence is [insert sequence here] and wherein said sequence is correlated with a higher likelihood of Schiff's disease.

That's ineligible. And it's ineligible because it turns people practicing the prior art into infringers merely because they think about the meaning of data. You can't protect "thinking about data" with patents. Claims that do so are ineligible.

Once again, this is the way things should be. It's the way things are. And it's the way things are going to stay. Get used to it.

So the only way that eligibility doesn't matter to you, Friend, is with regard to the previously unknown sequence? Just checking.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

October 2017

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