To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the relevant teachings of the references. The inherent subjectivity of such an analysis can lead to reasonable people disagreeing on whether an invention is ultimately patentable. But it does not end there like an onion, obviousness has layers.[1] Normally, whether the references themselves provide enabling disclosure is not relevant. Except when it is.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejecting claims for failure to satisfy the subject matter eligibility standard under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in
ex parte examination of claims to methods and related computing systems for genetic haplotyping in
In re Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University.
The claimed method is recited in representative claim 1:
1. A method for resolving haplotype phase, comprising:
receiving allele data describing allele information regarding genotypes for a family comprising at least a mother, a father, and at least two children of the mother and the father, where the genotypes for the family contain single nucleotide variants and storing the allele data on a computer system comprising a processor and a memory;
Amgen Inc v Sanofi (Fed Cir 2021) | McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
(f) a
buffer.
[Wherein the italicized limitations were relevant to the District Court s claim construction and this appeal.]
Maia s products contain amino acids in addition to the synthetic peptide hormone, which Bracco contended satisfy the buffer, surfactant and/or solubilizer limitations recited in the claims. The issue thus resolved as whether these claim limitations encompassed amino acids. One aspect of the District Court s construction was that dependent claims recited Markush groups for these limitations that contained amino acids for each. Another aspect was that the specification recited particular definitions of these terms that encompassed amino acids within their scope. These characteristics of the specification formed the basis for the District Court s construction of the terms buffer, surfactant, and solubilizer to include amino acids (among in each instance many other species). Following claim construction, Maia stipulated infringemen