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
Juristant #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

« FierceBiotech Announces the "Fierce 15" Biotech Companies for 2008 | Main | USPTO News: USPTO e-Commerce Update »

June 25, 2008

Comments

Thank you for the post. I read the Porro BPAI decision and am flabbergasted. Although I have not worked on this kind of claim for several years, this is the kind of rejection I was seeing, and I'm very sorry to see it succeeding with the Board (especially the biotech members of the Board). I hope that a resolution of Kubin will be helpful, but probably not; there has always been some tension between the obviousness standard and the written description standard for sequences, and for a long time practitioners were able to argue based on some quirky case law that biotech claims should get the better end of each argument. That is probably going to go away forever, but what will be left for sequence claims? Your tip to include consensus sequences is a good one, but given the way the PTO is applying the rules, I don't think that will help because the way they're articulating the rule, you're only going to get protection for the exact functional sequences you have disclosed in the application. If the rule of Porro is the final one, I don't see how anyone would be able to adequately protect an invention based on a sequence, since a design-around of a claim to an exact sequence is less than trivial. Hopefully the argument will be made that the standard being applied here to sequences is inconsistent with the standard as applied to other arts, and that Enzo and Lilly are inapt (as a special case and as one reciting only function, respectively) and common sense will prevail. Otherwise good luck to the industry in getting a legislative solution.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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