Life forms protectable as subjects of US patents— microbes to animals (Perhaps)
- 33 Downloads
Scientists, businessmen, universities, and industries with fundamental or peripheral interests in technology as applied to life processes will be keenly interested in recent US Patent Office decisions. These decisions indicate that new higher life forms, animal or plant, are proper subjects of patents if they are not naturally occurring (and are not human, in the case of animals).
In contrast to plants and other organisms, genetically modified animals have had no mode of protection as intellectual property except possibly as trade secrets or utility patents. TheEx parte Allen decision, reached by the Patent Office Board of Appeals and Interferences, directly addressed the issue of animal patentability in view of the broad reading of 35 U.S.C. §101 by the US Supreme Court in theChakrabarty decision. The subject invention concerned polyploid oysters. Claims directed toward polyploid oysters produced by a particular process were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 and §101. The Board, reversing the 35 U.S.C. §101-based rejection in view of theChakrabarty decision, indicated that the claimed polyploid oysters were non-naturally occurring manufactures or compositions of matter within the confines of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
A similar decision affecting the patentable status of plants or segments thereof had previouisly been reached by the Patent and Trademark Office in the case ofEx parte Hibberd, 227 U.S.P.Q. 443 (Bd. Pat. App. 1985). TheHibberd utility patent application concerned “genetically engineered” maize which had high levels of the tryptophan.
KeywordsApply Biochemistry Sunflower Seed Trade Secret Plant Variety Protection Utility Patent
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ex parte Allen, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425 (Bd. Pat. App. 1987).Google Scholar
- 2.In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 201 U.S.P.Q. 352 (C.C.P.A. 1979),vacated sub nom, 444 US 1028 andaff’d, 447 US 303 (1980).Google Scholar
- 3.In re Chakrabarty, 571 F.2d 40, 197 U.S.P.Q. 72 (C.C.P.A.),cert. dism’d sub nom, 439 U.S. 801 (1978),vacated, 444 U.S. 1028 andaff’d, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar
- 4.Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303, 206 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1980).Google Scholar
- 5.Ex parte Forman, 230 U.S.P.Q. 546 (Bd. Pat. App. 1986).Google Scholar
- 6.Ex parte Hibberd, 227 U.S.P.Q. 443 (Bd. Pat. App. 1985).Google Scholar
- 7.Ex parte Jackson, 217 U.S.P.Q. 804 (Bd. Pat. App. 1982).Google Scholar
- 8.In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 U.S.P.Q. 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
- 9.In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 186 U.S.P.Q. 471 (C.C.P.A. 1975).Google Scholar
- 10.Ex parte Solomons, 201 U.S.P.Q. 42 (Bd. Pat. App. 1978).Google Scholar