Application of Kirk
Decision Date | 10 April 1967 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 7522. |
Parties | Application of David Neville KIRK and Vladimir Petrow. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Bacon & Thomas, Washington, D. C. (Jesse B. Grove, Jr., Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellants.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Jack E. Armore, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.*
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 11, 25, 26, 28, 29, 39, 41 and 45 in appellants' application1 entitled "1-Dehydro-6-Methyl Steroid Compounds."
Each claim defines a specific steroid compound, claim 11 relating to a compound of the spirostane series; claims 25, 26, 28, 29 and 45 to compounds of the androstane series; and claims 39 and 41 to compounds of the pregnane series. It is unnecessary to reproduce any claim since the nature of the compounds will become apparent.
The Patent Office rejected all claims for failure of the specification "to comply with 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112." As we view the record, we are concerned with not only the legal adequacy of appellants' disclosure of "how to use" the claimed compounds under 35 U.S.C. § 112,2 but also the legal adequacy of assertions of usefulness in the original specification under 35 U.S.C. § 101.3 We are particularly concerned with the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 86 S.Ct. 1033, 16 L.Ed.2d 69, to the facts here.4
The appropriate starting point for disposition of those issues is appellants' specification, which begins with several general statements as to how the claimed compounds are useful:
Appellants' arguments are, in the main, two-fold. They first contend that the specification is adequate to comply with § 101 and § 112 because it discloses that the claimed compounds "have present and useful biological activity of the nature known for analogous steroidal compounds," and that "one skilled in the art would know how to use the compounds of the claims to take advantage of their presently-existing biological activity." The second argument is that the specification adequately discloses that the compounds "have use as intermediates in the production of aromatic steroidal hormones and other biologically useful compounds," and that the examiner has admitted one skilled in the art would know how to use the claimed compounds as intermediates for that purpose. The respective arguments present somewhat different considerations, and will be discussed separately.
In his final rejection, the examiner stated:
All the claims are again rejected as lacking adequate utility. The disclosure fails to indicate to one skilled in the art how one is to use the novel compounds of this invention. The therapeutic properties are stated in such general terms i. e., "useful biological properties", that it fails to convey any useful information to one skilled in the art and further fails to state which of the claimed compounds have a therapeutic activity. * * *
In response, appellants submitted argument that the rejection "is not warranted," and also submitted an affidavit of one of the applicants, a Dr. Petrow, which appellants summarized in a letter accompanying the affidavit and substantially reiterate in their brief here:
After reviewing the various passages of appellants' specification relating to the uses of the claimed compounds and "how to use" them, he concluded:
* * * nowhere is there found a specific allegation of utility for any compound within the scope of the claims. Thus the specification does not describe the manner in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the steroid art to use the compounds of the instant invention. * * * Appellants have not listed one specific use for their claimed steroids and as those skilled in the art know steroids are susceptible to hundreds of uses. What appellants are really saying to those in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. US Steel Corp.
... ... § 103 because of U.S. Patent No. 2,692,257 ("the '257 patent" or "the Zletz patent") granted October 19, 1954, on an application filed on April 28, 1951 ... (g) The '851 patent is invalid because the application fails to state a specific utility for the ... use a presently useful invention, otherwise an applicant would anomalously be required to teach how to use a useless invention." Application of Kirk, 54 C.C.P.A. 1119, 376 F.2d 936, 942 (1967), quoted in Standard Oil, 494 F.Supp. at 385; see 2 D. Chisum § 7.036; see also Brenner, supra ... ...
-
Commissioner of Patents v. DEUTSCHE GOLD-UND-SILBER-S., ETC.
... ... Commissioner of Patents appeals from an order of the District Court directing him to issue a patent to Appellee on two claims of a patent application. 1 Appellee, a West German corporation, is the assignee of the application, entitled "Thiophenylpyridyl Amine, Chlorothiophenylpyridyl 397 F.2d ... 21 Cf. Application of Kirk, 376 F.2d 936, 942 (C.C. P.A. 1967). The Commissioner relies upon some out-of-context statements from Graham, and also on the companion case, ... ...
-
Standard Oil Company v. Montedison
...and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 774 376 F.2d 936, 942, 54 CCPA 1119 (1967). 775 See also Application of Joly, 376 F.2d 906, 54 CCPA 1159 (1967); Application of Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389 (Cust. & Pat.App.19......
-
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc.
...His patent has value directly related to the value of his invention, as determined in the marketplace." In re Kirk, 54 CCPA 1119, 376 F.2d 936, 964 (1967)(Rich, J., dissenting).17 And the market reward, under the statute, is explicitly the reward available from American markets subject to A......
-
Chapter §5.06 Two-Step Analysis
...(accidental or intentional) is to be considered."); In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 184 (C.C.P.A. 1960), rev'd on other grounds, In re Kirk, 376 F.2d 936 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ("There always exists, on the part of some people, a selfish desire to obtain patent protection without making a full disclos......
-
In re Dane K. Fisher: an exercise in utility.
...(3) Patent Act of 1952, ch. 950, [section] 1, 66 Stat. 798 (July 19, 1952). (4) Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1965). (5) In re Kirk, 376 F.2d 936 (C.C.P.A. 1967). (6) In re Joly, 376 F.2d 906 (C.C.P.A. 1967). (7) In re Dane K. Fisher and Raghunath V. Lalgudi, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 200......
-
Fixing our broken patent system.
...is invalid for both lack of utility and lack of proper disclosure); In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 1405-06 (C.C.P.A. 1969); In re Kirk, 376 F.2d 936, 941^12 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (vague references to "biological activity" and "biological properties" failed to satisfy disclosure requirements because......
-
Chapter §10.02 Practical/Real-World Utility
...knows the full extent of the utility until years after he makes his invention. Uses evolve after inventions are disclosed. In re Kirk, 376 F.2d 936, 955 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (Rich, J., dissenting).[11] 383 U.S. 519, 530 (1966), analyzed in further detail infra §10.03[B].[12] Manson, 383 U.S. at ......