Cancer/Bloc/incredible utility
From Patentbarquestions
7. On January 2, 2001, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Bloc.
The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention which reads as follows:
1. Compound Y.
In the specification, Bloc explains that compound Y is an intermediate in the chemical manufacture of synthetic Z.
With respect to synthetic Z, the specification discloses its structural formula and further states that synthetic Z
is modeled on the natural form of Z to give it the same therapeutic ability to alleviate pain. The specification goes
on to state that synthetic Z is also a cure for cancer. On June 2, 2001, the practitioner received an Office action
from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being inoperative; that is,
the synthetic Z does not operate to produce a cure for cancer (i.e., incredible utility). Bloc believes he is entitled
to a patent to his compound Y. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP,
how best should the practitioner reply to the rejection of the claim?
(A) Advise Bloc that he should give up because a cure for cancer is indeed incredible and is unproven.
(B) File a reply arguing that a cure for cancer is not incredible and he can prove it if given the chance.
(C) File a reply arguing that whether or not a cure for cancer is incredible is superfluous
since Bloc has disclosed another utility – alleviating pain, which is not incredible.
(D) File a reply arguing that the claim is directed to compound Y, not synthetic Z.
(E) File a reply arguing that synthetic Z is modeled on the natural form of Z.
ANSWER: (C) is the best answer. MPEP §§ 2107.01 and 2107.02. MPEP § 2107.01, under the heading “Therapeutic or Pharmacological Utility,” cites In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 461-2, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956); In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); and Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856, 206 USPQ 881, 883 (CCPA 1980) as taking the position that “[i]nventions asserted to have utility in the treatment of human or animal disorders are subject to the same legal requirements for utility as inventions in any other field of technology.” MPEP § 2107.02, under the heading “The Claimed Invention Is The Focus Of The Utility Requirement,” states “. . . regardless of the category of invention that is claimed (e.g., product or process), an applicant need only make one credible assertion of specific utility for the claimed invention to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112; additional statements of utility, even if not “credible,” do not render the claimed invention lacking in utility. See, e.g., . . . In re Gottlieb, 328 F.2d 1016, 1019, 140 USPQ 665, 668 (CCPA 1964) (‘Having found that the antibiotic is useful for some purpose, it becomes unnecessary to decide whether it is in fact useful for the other purposes ‘indicated’ in the specification as possibly useful.’).” The issue is whether Mr. Bloc has disclosed a specific utility for the claimed compound Y sufficient to satisfy the practical utility requirement of 35 U.S.C § 101. According to the set of facts, we know that compound Y is an intermediate in the chemical manufacture of synthetic Z. We are given two utilities for synthetic Z: 1) alleviating pain, a utility it shares with the natural form of Z; and, 2) curing cancer. The examiner focuses on the disclosure that synthetic Z is a cure for cancer. Even if one were to agree that synthetic Z’s ability to cure cancer amounts to an incredible utility, a claim to the intermediate compound Y would not run afoul of the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 where another substantial, credible and specific utility is alternatively demonstrated. Here, the specification discloses that synthetic Z, like the natural form of Z, alleviates pain. The alleviation of pain is another substantial, credible and specific utility and serves to give compound Y an alternative utility to that of being used to make a cancer-curing substance. An applicant need not show that all disclosed utilities are credible. An applicant need only show that one of the disclosed utilities is in fact credible. In re Gottlieb, supra. The establishment of a credible, substantial and specific utility renders the disclosure of an additional incredible utility superfluous, and therefore ultimately irrelevant. Accordingly, Mr. Bloc’s best course of action is to make the argument that he has disclosed another substantial, credible, and specific utility, notwithstanding the disclosure of curing cancer. (A) is not the most correct answer. The advice could prevent him from getting a patent to which he may be entitled. (B) is not the most correct answer. A cure for cancer is ostensibly incredible. It is hardly a response to the examiner’s rejection to ask for the chance to prove one can cure cancer. (D) is not the most correct answer. While it is true that the utility requirement is addressed to the claimed invention, which here is compound Y not synthetic Z, it is not enough to respond by repeating what the invention is but, rather, to show that the invention has indeed a substantial, credible, and specific utility. Whatever is claimed as the invention, it must comply with the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here the examiner states that the claim does not comply, as evidenced by the incredible utility of the final product. It is Mr. Bloc’s responsibility to then show that compound Y does comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 by showing that its end product has a substantial, credible, and specific utility. (E) is not the most correct answer. Noting that synthetic Z is modeled on natural Z does not go far enough in establishing a substantial, credible and specific utility for compound Y. It is synthetic Z’s therapeutic ability to alleviate pain which establishes the necessary alternative utility.
