In re Ngai, 03-1524.
Decision Date | 13 May 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 03-1524.,03-1524. |
Citation | 367 F.3d 1336 |
Parties | In re John NGAI and David Lin. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Richard Aron Osman, Science & Technology Law Group, of Hillsborough, CA, for appellants.
John M. Whealan, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, VA, for appellee. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen and Stephen Walsh, Associate Solicitors.
Before MICHEL, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners John Ngai and David Lin (collectively "Ngai") appeal from the decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("Board") rejecting claim 19 of the petitioner's patent application No. 09/597,608 (the " '608 application") as being anticipated by prior art. Ex parte Ngai, No.2002-1092 (BPAI 2003); see 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We find that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and accordingly affirm.
The study of nucleic acids, including ribonucleic acids ("RNA"), has a wide variety of applications in the field of biological sciences. Unfortunately, oftentimes the amount of RNA that experimenters can extract from the cells can be quite small. Experimenters must duplicate the material many times over to assemble a quantity sufficient for experimentation. This process is called "amplification." Additionally, some RNA strands may be difficult to detect in cells. A process called "normalization" enhances experimenters' ability to detect the RNA that is expressed at low levels.
Ngai invented a new method for amplifying and normalizing RNA. He submitted the '608 application to patent this invention. The '608 application contained 20 claims. Claims 1-18 are drawn to a method of amplifying RNA. Claim 1 is representative of the method claims 1-18 and reads:
A method for normalizing and amplifying an RNA population comprising the steps of:
copying the message RNA (mRNA) to form first single stranded (ss) cDNA;
converting the first ss-cDNA to first double stranded (ds) cDNA;
linearly amplifying the first ds-cDNA to form first amplified RNA (aRNA);
tagging the 3' end of the first aRNA with a known sequence to form 3' tagged first aRNA;
copying the 3'-tagged first aRNA to form second ss-cDNA; and
normalizing the mRNA or the first aRNA.
Claim 19 is drawn to a kit designed to perform the method recited in Claim 1. Claim 19 reads:
A kit for normalizing and amplifying an RNA population, said kit comprising instructions describing the method of claim 1 and a premeasured portion of a reagent selected from the group consisting of: oligo dT biotinylated primer, T7 RNA polymerase, annealed biotinylated primers, streptavidin beads, polyadenyl transferase, reverse transcriptase, RNase H, DNA pol I, buffers and nucleotides. (emphasis added).
Ngai does not dispute that prior art teaches a kit comprising instructions and a 10X buffer.1
The Examiner allowed claims 1-18 but rejected claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 respectively. The Board reversed the rejection with respect to claim 20 and affirmed the rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by prior art.
The Board agreed with the Examiner that prior art anticipates claim 19 because it teaches each and every limitation of the claim including instructions and a buffer agent. The Board concluded that the only difference between the prior art and claim 19 is the content of the instructions. Finding that the content of the instructions was not "functionally related" to the kit, the Board concluded that claim 19 should be rejected as anticipated by prior art.
Ngai appealed the Board's decision to this Court. The only issue presented by this appeal is whether claim 19 should have been allowed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4).
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.Cir.1997). We review PTO's factual findings for substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2000).
Ngai argues that the addition of new printed matter to a known product makes the product patentable. He rests his argument on the fact that claim 19 is limited to kits containing instructions teaching the method described in claim 1. Ngai argues that because prior art does not teach a limitation of "instructions describing the method of claim 1," combined with an amplification kit, the petitioner's claim cannot be anticipated. Ngai relies on the language of In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed.Cir.1983): "[The][d]ifference between an invention and the prior art cited against it cannot be ignored merely because those differences reside in the content of the printed matter." Id. at 1385.
The PTO argues that Ngai's claim merely teaches a new use for an existing product. Thus, according to the PTO, Ngai can claim the new use as a method, but he cannot claim the existing product itself. The PTO relies on a different passage of Gulack and argues that in order to qualify under Gulack, the printed matter must be functionally related to the underlying object. "The critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." Id. at 1386.
The dispute between Ngai and PTO reduces to the question of the proper meaning of Gulack. The PTO has the better argument. In Gulack, the Board rejected a claim directed to a circular band designed for mathematical and educational purposes. The invention consisted of "(1) a band, ring, or set of concentric rings; (2) a plurality of individual digits imprinted on the band or ring at regularly spaced intervals; and (3) an algorithm by which the appropriate digits are developed." Id. at 1387. The rejection was premised upon the fact that a circular band with items printed upon it was well known in the art. See id. at 1384. We reversed, finding that the numbers printed on the band had a functional relationship to the band itself. The Court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dev. Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc.
...sheet with a known compound did not make the claim patentably distinct from the prior art. See id. (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2004) (per curiam)). The district court next addressed the '102 patent, reading claim 1 to “require[ ] giving a patient metaxalone and informing the ......
-
Ex parte Selinger
...descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (noting that when descriptive material is not functionally rel......
-
Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. Ip Ltd.
...to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability." In re Ngai , 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have held that merely adding an instruction sheet or other......
-
Angiodynamics, Inc. v. Patent of C.R. Bard, Inc.
...functional relationship to the structure defined by the other limitations of claim 1, IsoMed anticipates claim 1. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2004). reasonable analogy can be drawn between the facts of the present case and those of Ngai. In Ngai, our reviewing court re......
-
Avoid On-Sale Bar by Filing Early Both in the United States and China Post-Helsinn
...Intellectual Prop. Law Ass’n, Report of the Economic Survey (2013). 7. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Gulack , 703 F.2d at 1384−85. 8. E.g. , Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP L.P., 890 F.3d ......
-
Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
...Intellectual Prop. Law Ass’n, Report of the Economic Survey (2013). 7. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Gulack , 703 F.2d at 1384−85. 8. E.g. , Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP L.P., 890 F.3d ......
-
Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
...Intellectual Prop. Law Ass’n, Report of the Economic Survey (2013). 7. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Gulack , 703 F.2d at 1384−85. 8. E.g. , Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP L.P., 890 F.3d ......
-
Have I Heard That Before? Copyright's Impact on Drawing Inspiration from Music's Past
...Intellectual Prop. Law Ass’n, Report of the Economic Survey (2013). 7. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Gulack , 703 F.2d at 1384−85. 8. E.g. , Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP L.P., 890 F.3d ......