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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Court Report | Main | Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: Amarantus Bioscience Holdings, Personalis, Inc., and Population Diagnostics, Inc. »

September 14, 2015

Comments

In this practitioner's humble opinion, the panel decision misused the "routine, well-understood, and conventional" test from Mayo in a way that renders it meaningless. In Mayo, all of the claimed steps, except the abstract ones, were known in the art in exactly the combination found in the claims. In Ariosa, although the combination of claimed steps minus the abstract ones was unknown, each individual step was routine,well-understood, and conventional. Nobody had ever amplified paternal DNA from non-cellular DNA in material plasma. That is an obviousness rejection, minus the need for a motivation or reason to modify the prior art. Virtually no invention would survive such a test. The Court in Mayo never set forth such a test.

Nick,

That's just one problem with legislating from the bench - the bigger problem of course is that the Court has written a law that is (and should be found to be) void for vagueness.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2019

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