Editing MPEP 2107
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 550: | Line 550: | ||
utility. | utility. | ||
{{Statute|Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856, 206 USPQ 881, 883 (CCPA 1980)}} | {{Statute|Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856, 206 USPQ 881, | ||
883 (CCPA 1980)}} | |||
In Nelson v. Bowler, the court addressed the practical | In Nelson v. Bowler, the court addressed the practical | ||
utility requirement in the context of an interference | utility requirement in the context of an interference | ||
proceeding. | proceeding. Bowler challenged the patentability | ||
Bowler challenged the patentability | |||
of the invention claimed by Nelson on the basis | of the invention claimed by Nelson on the basis | ||
that Nelson had failed to sufficiently and persuasively | that Nelson had failed to sufficiently and persuasively | ||
Line 569: | Line 568: | ||
pharmacology (e.g., the stimulation of uterine smooth | pharmacology (e.g., the stimulation of uterine smooth | ||
muscle which resulted in labor induction or abortion, | muscle which resulted in labor induction or abortion, | ||
the ability to raise or lower blood pressure, etc.). | the ability to raise or lower blood pressure, etc.). To | ||
support the utility he identified in his disclosure, Nelson | |||
included in his application the results of tests | included in his application the results of tests | ||
demonstrating the bioactivity of his new substituted | demonstrating the bioactivity of his new substituted | ||
prostaglandins relative to the bioactivity of naturally | prostaglandins relative to the bioactivity of naturally | ||
occurring prostaglandins. | occurring prostaglandins. The court concluded | ||
that | |||
The court concluded that | |||
Nelson had satisfied the practical utility requirement | Nelson had satisfied the practical utility requirement | ||
in identifying the synthetic prostaglandins as | in identifying the synthetic prostaglandins as | ||
Line 588: | Line 585: | ||
Jolles, 628 F.2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 (CCPA 1980), an | |||
In In re Jolles, 628 F.2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 | |||
(CCPA 1980), an inventor claimed protection for | |||
pharmaceutical compositions for treating | |||
leukemia. | |||
The active ingredient in the compositions | The active ingredient in the compositions | ||
Line 601: | Line 601: | ||
that showed the relevant pharmacological | that showed the relevant pharmacological | ||
activity. | activity. | ||