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.

Contact the Docs


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. (Fed. Cir. 2019) »

August 25, 2019


I don't get it. Everything in claim 1 was known, except for the covalent linker between the two complementary RNA strands. But we "know" from Myriad that covalent bonds like that are irrelelvant - in Myriad SCOTUS, with its wealth of experience in science, taught us that the hydrogens at the ends of the cleaved DNA in Myriad were no different from the additional nucleotides at those ends that were present in nature. So why was claim 1 here not considered to be abstract or a product of nature, per SCOTUS in Myriad/Alice?

/end sarcasm/

I am grateful that the PTO now seems to be applying 101 in a slightly more sane manner than it was doing 3-5 years ago.

ping and pong, Atari Man (your sense of gratitude is very much premature).

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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