1 / 16

Utility and Written Description

Utility and Written Description. Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations. Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. Utility. 35 U.S.C. §101 Patentable Inventions.

gryta
Télécharger la présentation

Utility and Written Description

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Utility and Written Description Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy

  2. Utility

  3. 35 U.S.C. §101 Patentable Inventions Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

  4. The Patent Office of the United Kingdom • Issued Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to biotechnological Inventions (September 2002) • Refer to the USPTO’s Utility Examination Guidelines • “…although the Guidelines issued by the USPTO did not have direct effect in the UK, the requirement in the United States of America that a “specific, substantial and credible” utility be disclosed, was arguably the sort of disclosure, relating to industrial applicability, which the UK Office would expect to be contained in a UK application.”* * WIPO “Standing Committee on the Law of Patents” Ninth Session, Geneva, May 12 to16, 2003

  5. ICOS Corporation/Seven Transmembrane Receptor, (EP-B-0630405) OJEPT 2002, 293 • Decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (June 20, 2001) • “…potential uses of the invention are disclosed in the specification which however are based on a proposed function of the V28 protein as a receptor which is not sufficiently disclosed in the specification” • “…the potential uses disclosed in the application are speculative, i.e., are not specific, substantial and credible and as such are not considered industrial applications.”

  6. Utility • Claim: • An isolated and purified nucleic acid (protein) comprising SEQ ID NO: 1. • Some asserted utilities for discussion: • Forensics • Cell identification (non-disease) • Microarrays (non-specific) • If the array is useful, are the individual members? • Laundry lists of potential uses • W/no common theme • W/common theme

  7. Utility- Post Filing Evidence • Application asserts the claimed product is useful for treating a laundry list of diseases • The list comprises apparently unrelated diseases that would not be expected to all be treatable by the same agent • Is there a prima facie case for lack of utility? • What evidence can overcome prima facie case of lack of utility?

  8. “Laundry” List • What constitutes a laundry list? • Many pages of potential uses? • 2 uses • “Its an agonist or an antagonist” • Is the assertion that all are treatable acceptable? • What evidence can overcome prima facie case of lack of utility?

  9. Utility- Post Filing Evidence • A) Applicant responds with the argument that it is possible to treat one member of the list • B) Applicant responds with evidencethat it is possible to treat one member of the list • Under what circumstances would this be compelling?

  10. Preventing - Curing - Vaccines • Are there situations when these terms will invoke a utility issue? • If so, what situations?

  11. Written Description

  12. 35 U.S.C. 112 Specification, first paragraph The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

  13. Written Description • Is there a necessary link between meeting the written description requirement and the enablement requirement?

  14. Written Description • Is “homology/identity” plus function acceptable? • Should the function be a specific, substantial, and credible use? • Is there a difference between “homology/identity” language and the use of hybridization language?

  15. Written Description • When is “comprising” language appropriate for nucleic acid or protein claims? • When should a process of use claim be subject to a written description rejection? • Consider only process steps per se? • Consider products used in process?

  16. Written Description • Variants, Fragments, Mutants, Subsequences • How much description is necessary? • Human, Mammalian, Vertebrate

More Related