Application of Fisher
Decision Date | 11 June 1970 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8208. |
Citation | 427 F.2d 833 |
Parties | Application of Joseph D. FISHER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Carl C. Batz, Frank T. Barber, Chicago, Ill., attorneys of record, for appellant. George R. Jones, Robert H. Berdo, Beale & Jones, Arlington, Va., of counsel.
Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and MATTHEWS, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, which affirmed the rejection of claims 4 and 5, the only claims remaining in appellant's application serial No. 72,481, filed November 29, 1960, for Adrenal Gland Stimulating Concentrate and Method for the Preparation Thereof. The application is a continuation-in-part of a prior co-pending application serial No. 435,451, filed June 9, 1954, which was before this court in In re Fisher, 307 F.2d 948, 50 CCPA 1025 (1962). That application was a continuation of application serial No. 122,588, filed October 20, 1949, which we shall refer to as the parent application.
The specification then states that the product can be characterized structurally as a peptide containing a chain of identifiable amino acids. While the exact sequence will vary from product to product, depending on the source and preparative history of the product, the first 24 amino acids in the chain, counting from the N terminus of the molecule, will have the following sequence: (1) Serine, (2) Tyrosine, (3) Serine, (4) Methionine, (5) Glutamic Acid, (6) Histadine, (7) Phenylalanine, (8) Arginine, (9) Tryptophan, (10) Glycine, (11) Lysine, (12) Proline, (13) Valine, (14) Glycine, (15) Lysine, (16) Lysine, (17) Arginine, (18) Arginine, (19) Proline, (20) Valine, (21) Lysine, (22) Valine, (23) Tyrosine, (24) Proline. ACTH obtained from hogs contains a sequence of 39 amino acids, the first 24 being as recited above; AC TH obtained from sheep or beef also contains a sequence of 39 amino acids, the first 24 being as recited, and the 25th to 39th being in a sequence different from that of the hog extract.2 No structural description is given for ACTH extracted from other animals.
Appellant defines the subject matter sought to be patented as follows:
OPINIONThere are many grounds of rejection affirmed by the board in this case. We shall set them forth separately, with our opinion on each.
The board affirmed the examiner's rejection of claim 5 on the ground of res judicata, stating that the claim differed from claim 13 in Fisher, supra, "mainly in calling for a `preparation containing at least 1 International Unit of ACTH per milligram' in place of the terminology in claim 13 `concentrate having a potency at least equal to that of the International Standard.'" The board held this to be "no significant difference other than in verbiage." We reverse the board on this ground of rejection. "Verbiage" was the very problem in Fisher. The court there found that the words "a potency at least equal to the International Standard" rendered the claims unpatentable under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 307 F.2d at 950-951, 50 CCPA at 1029. These words do not appear in the claims before us. Thus, a different issue is presented and res judicata does not apply. See In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930, 50 CCPA 954 (1963).
The examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by the following references:
Appellant did not contest the pertinence of these references, but sought to remove them by relying on his parent application which, as mentioned above, was filed in 1949. The examiner took the position that appellant was not entitled to the parent date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 because the parent contained insufficient disclosure to support claim 4 in the manner required by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The board affirmed this rejection for two reasons. First, since the parent application lacked any structural description of the ACTH extracts therein disclosed, the Board concluded that it could not be determined whether those products would meet the terms of claim 4, which recites a specific sequence of the first 24 amino acids. Appellant contended that the parent application inherently disclosed products meeting the terms of claim 4, even though appellant did not know the chemical structure of those products when the parent application was filed. Appellant cited several cases in support of the proposition that inherent disclosure is sufficient under 35 U.S.C. § 112, including Riester v. Kendall, 159 F.2d 732, 34 CC PA 859 (1947), and In re Nathan, 328 F.2d 1005, 51 CCPA 1059 (1964). The board did not dispute the correctness of this proposition, but found that "it has not been established that the parent disclosures inherently produce the claimed products * * *." We agree with appellant that this finding was erroneous. The parent application discloses treatment of hog pituitary extracts. The Li (J.A.C.S.) article discloses the amino acid sequence for beef ACTH and states that the first 24 amino acids in the sequence are the same for porcine (hog) ACTH, namely, the sequence recited in claim 4. The hog-extracted products disclosed in appellant's parent application must therefore have had the recited sequence. The board's second reason for holding the parent application insufficient to support claim 4 was that the products disclosed in the parent were insufficient to support a claim of the breadth of claim 4. On this point we agree with the board. The claim recites that the product must contain "at least" 24 amino acids in a specified sequence. The parent disclosure mentions treating extracts from "hog, beef, lamb, and other animal pituitary glands, and including also pituitary glands of whales."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., Civil Action No. 93-110-JJF.
... ... (Weintraub Dep. at 645-46; NIH grant application, DX 81 p. HW0182; DX 100 (letter to NIH)). They started work on their patent application in the fall of 1983, and filed the patent application in ... Greater disclosure is required, however, where the unpredictability of the relevant art increases. Application of Fisher, 57 C.C.P.A. 1099, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (Cust.&Pat.App.1970) ... Undue experimentation is determined by evaluating the following ... ...
-
Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., Nos. 89-1541
... ... The first step involves the application of a solution containing Factor VIII complex (Factor VIII:C/Factor VIII:RP) to a column packed with agarose beads. Attached to the beads is a ... The inventors distinguished the case of In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970), which held the open-ended claims there presented unpatentable for lack of enablement of "future compositions ... ...
-
Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
...is not indefinite merely because structure is not presented or because a partial structure is presented."); In re Fisher, 57 C.C.P.A. 1099, 427 F.2d 833, 838 (CCPA 1970). Thus, the term a "siloxane portion" is not indefinite to one of skill in the Next the court will address Bausch & Lomb's......
-
Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.
...this court reversed the Patent Office position when the Fisher application came before us for a second time. See In re Fisher, 427 F. 2d 833, 57 CCPA 1099, 166 USPQ 18 (1970). ...
-
Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
...Cir. 1958); In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 975 (C.C.P.A. 1979), vacated as moot , Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 444 U.S. 1028 (1980); In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (C.C.P.A. 1970); see also In re Mays, 175 F.2d 570, 573 (C.C.P.A. 1949). A quick LexisNexis search revealed that the case is also cited......
-
THE DEATH OF THE GENUS CLAIM.
...(155.) Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566-67 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (156.) See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 833, 837 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Rainer, 390 F.2d 771, 775-76 (C.C.P.A. 1968). Cf. generally Kevin T. Richards, Note, Experimentation and Patent ......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...because of the difficulty in meeting the enablement requirements in these typically unpredictable disciplines. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (C.C.P.A. 1970). In contrast, electronic inventions are particularly suited for means-plus-function limitations, because many structures often a......
-
Chapter §4.02 Undue Experimentation
...338 F.3d 1368, 1371–1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).[82] Storer v. Clark, 860 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Newman, J.).[83] See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833 (C.C.P.A. 1970). The CCPA, in an oft-quoted passage from Fisher, stated: It is apparent that such an inventor should be allowed to dominate ......