In re Fisher (421 F.3d 1365, 2005 September 07)
Decision Parameters
- Case: In re Fisher
- Type: [USEFUL]
- Date: 2005 September 07
- Code: 421 F.3d 1365
- Court: Federal Circuit
- Vote: 2-1
- URL: casetext.com/case/in-re-fisher-6
- Patent:
Decisions It Cites
-
Brenner v. Manson [383 U.S. 519, 1966]
Decisions That Cite It
Rules & Quotes
[USEFUL] {1} Courts have used the labels "practical utility" and "real world" utility interchangeably in determining whether an invention offers a "substantial" utility. ... It thus is clear that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the "substantial" utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public. ... Absent such identification, we hold that the claimed ESTs have not been researched and understood to the point of providing an immediate, well-defined, real world benefit to the public meriting the grant of a patent.[USEFUL] {2} Turning to the "specific" utility requirement, an application must disclose a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless. ... Thus, in addition to providing a "substantial" utility, an asserted use must also show that that claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public. ... Absent such identification, we hold that the claimed ESTs have not been researched and understood to the point of providing an immediate, well-defined, real world benefit to the public meriting the grant of a patent.
[USEFUL] {3} The Brenner court stated: "We find absolutely no warrant for the proposition that although Congress intended that no patent be granted on a chemical compound whose sole 'utility' consists of its potential role as an object of use-testing, a different set of rules was meant to apply to the process which yielded the unpatentable product." 383 U.S. at 535. Applying that same logic here, we conclude that the claimed ESTs, which do not correlate to an underlying gene of known function, fail to meet the standard for utility intended by Congress.