|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court do not just judicially exclude what nature does, but what
nature makes. In Mayo, they include naturally occurring plants as excluded
subject matter.
- DNA embedded in chromosomes in the human
body
- Cell-free DNA found in fragments in blood plasma etc.
- DNA separated
from other cellular matter by a process known as ‘lysis’
- “Isolated DNA”
formed by splitting up the DNA extracted through lysis
- So-called cDNA formed
by a translation process DNA->RNA->cDNA that removes non-coding base
sequences from the DNA fragment, to yield a DNA fragment that encodes for the
same protein as the original isolated DNA
- rDNA or recombinant DNA, formed by
genetic engineering.
As you say, 1. and 2. are judicially excluded
as laws of nature. The 'lysis' process in 3. might well be stutory matter, but
the products of the process would not be protected by the patent. The same
applies to the splitting up of the product of lysis into 'Isolated DNA'. 5. and
6. are different, depending on what subject matter is claimed. If the
process/method is claimed then the resulting cDNA or rDNA would not be
protected.
However, if the claimed subject matter is manufacture, or
composition of matter then the method of making the matter or creation of the
composition of matter is irrelevant. If it were 'manufacture, or composition of
matter' then the specific cDNA or rDNA manufactured or composed in the claims
would have to be new and useful. I could see that being the case for medical
treatment. However, every instance of cDNA or rDNA would not be included in the
patent protection because they are not all equally novel or useful or
claimed.
I look forward to the Supremes opinion. They are usually very
good at opinions giving this depth of detail.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- hmm - Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 12:09 PM EDT
|
|
|
|