I.     Patent Introduction and History

A.     "Letters patent" = open to view

1.     Patent = contract between inventor & government

2.     Exchange of monopoly for disclosure

3.     Right = exclusivity, right to exclude others from making,  using, selling or offering to sell the invention

B.     History

1.     Europe & England

2.     United States - Act to promote the progress of the useful Arts - 1790

C.     Statutory classes - utility patents

1.     Process or method (the term used to be "art")

2.     Machine (or apparatus)

3.     Manufacture (product)

4.     Composition of matter

5.     Any improvement thereon

D.     Miscellaneous issues

1.     Term = 20 years

2.     CAFC hears all appeals from PTO or district courts

II.     Subject Matter of Patents

        A.    Product of nature

                1.    HYPO:

                        X  applies for patent on process of hitting large rocks with large mechanical hammer until rock is converted to gravel

                        Patentable?

                2.    Ex Parte Latimer, 1889 Comm'n Dec. 13 (1889)

B.     Natural phenomena

        1.        Morse, p. 804

        2.        Dolbear v. Amer. Bell Tele., 126 U.S. 1 (1888)

        3.      Tilghman, p. 810

        4.      Zoltan, p. 814

C.     Living organisms

        1.        Funk, p. 821

        2.        HYPO:

                    X develops a process using bacteria that turns cream cheese into blue cheese.

                    Patentable?

        3.        Plant patents

          a.    Alliance for BioIntegrity v. Shalala, No. 98-300.

          b.    Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l v. J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., 200 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

4.   Chakrabarty, p. 830

5.    Depositing biological material

D.   Patenting animal life

1.     PTO rules

2.     Harvard mouse

3.    Transgenic animals

                           a.    Genetically engineered human beings

                           b.    Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)

                          c.    Human genome project

E.     Software inventions & abstract ideas or principles

1.     Algorithms

2.     Is software a process, machine or manufacture?

         a.     Diehr, p. 841

b.

 

CASE	INVENTION	PATENTABLE	ALGORITHM REASONING
Benson	Binary code	No	Principle of nature
Flook	Alarm limits in catalytic conversion process	No	Principle of nature, but if overall process patentable, use of algorithm does not render entire process unpatentable
Diehr	Process for molding uncured rubber & opening the molds	Yes	Invention utilized algorithm without completely appropriating it
State Street	Financial services software	Yes	Software produces a new & useful result. Effectively overrules Benson re algorithms?

         3.     State Street , extra assigned case

                a.    E-commerce patents

                b.    H.R. 5364

F.     Surgical techniques

 A.     Originality - the patent applicant must be the original inventor

 B.     Sole and joint inventorship

 C.    Utility serves as the dividing line between copyright and patent

1.     Constitutional concept

2.     Minimum utility

a.   See Bedford v. Hunt, 3 Fed. Cas. 37 (No. 1217) (C.C. Mass. 1817)

b.  HYPO:

        X invents astounding machine with many moving parts -- a perpetual motion machine

        Patentable?

3.    Three tests for invention to be deemed useful:

a.     Operability

b.     Minimum human purpose

c.     Quality of purpose

        4.    Chemical inventions & positive on laboratory rats - see  In re Bergal, 292 F.2d 955 (C.C.P.A. 1961)

        5.    Gambling devices

                a.    HYPO:

                        A invents remarkable new gambling device -- automatic  racetrack

                b.    Gambling devices originally incapable of beneficial use

6.     When must utility be shown?  How much utility must be shown?

7.     HYPO:

        A    invents baldness curing machine

        Patentable?

        A's machine works, but is dangerous

8.    Biotechnology and utility

A.     Introduction

                    2.     It’s not the difference, but the difference the difference makes.

3.   Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1851)

4.     Invention not always "flash of genius"

  B.      Nonobviousness definition

            1.     Patent cannot be obtained "if the differences between the subject matter to be patented and the prior
                    art are such that the subject matter taken as a whole would have  been obvious at the time when the
                    invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains."

a.    Nonobviousness determined when invention made.

b.    Sole standard for invention

c.    Decided in light of the prior art

    2.     Cases

            a.      Graham, p. 853

 1.    The invention

 2.   Hotchkiss mechanic v. PHOSPA

  b.    HYPO:

         X invents the Automatic pickle slicer

 c.     Graham tri-level inquiry

          1.     Scope and content of prior art

          2.     Differences between prior art and claims at issue

           3.     Level of ordinary skill in pertinent art

    3.     PTO and nonobviousness