The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down a decision in In Re Dane K. Fisher And Raghunath V. Lalgudi (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 04-1465 (Serial No. 09/619,643), September 7, 2005). Monsanto had appealed the rejection of its patent application for five expressed sequence tags (ESTs) that encode parts of genes whose functions are unknown. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant the patent to Monsanto’s assignees (Fisher and Raghunath) on the grounds that the ESTs have no specific utility; they can only be used to locate genes of unknown function, as can all other ESTs.
Monsanto insisted that the PTO is applying a higher utility standard than stipulated by law, and that the use of ESTs as research tools is enough to warrant them patentable. Monsanto says the PTO argument that awarding patents on ESTs would inhibit innovation is no basis for rejecting them if the law says otherwise – even if it would be “bad public policy.” In affirming the Board’s findings, the CAFC agreed that each of the five claimed ESTs lack a specific and substantial utility and that they are not enabled.
Basically, the claimed invention relates to five purified nucleic acid sequences that encode proteins and protein fragments in maize plants. The claimed sequences are commonly referred to as “expressed sequence tags” or “ESTs.” An EST is a short nucleotide sequence that represents a fragment of a cDNA clone. It is typically generated by isolating a cDNA clone and sequencing a small number of nucleotides located at the end of one of the two cDNA strands. When an EST is introduced into a sample containing a mixture of DNA, the EST may hybridize with a portion of DNA. Such binding shows that the gene corresponding to the EST was being expressed at the time of mRNA extraction.
Claim 1 of the ’643 application recites:
A substantially purified nucleic acid molecule that encodes a maize protein or fragment thereof comprising a nucleic acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 through SEQ ID NO: 5.
The ESTs set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 through SEQ ID NO: 5 are obtained from cDNA library LIB3115, which was generated from pooled leaf tissue harvested from maize plants (RX601, Asgrow Seed Company, Des Moines, Iowa, U.S.A.) grown in the fields at Asgrow research stations. SEQ ID NO:1 through SEQ ID NO:5 consist of 429, 423, 365, 411, and 331 nucleotides, respectively. When Fisher filed the ’643 application, he claimed ESTs corresponding to genes expressed from the maize pooled leaf tissue at the time of anthesis. Nevertheless, Fisher did not know the precise structure or function of either the genes or the proteins encoded for by those genes.
The ’643 application generally discloses that the five claimed ESTs may be used in a variety of ways, including: (1) serving as a molecular marker for mapping the entire maize genome, which consists of ten chromosomes that collectively encompass roughly 50,000 genes; (2) measuring the level of mRNA in a tissue sample via microarray technology to provide information about gene expression; (3) providing a source for primers for use in the polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) process to enable rapid and inexpensive duplication of specific genes; (4) identifying the presence or absence of a polymorphism; (5) isolating promoters via chromosome walking; (6) controlling protein expression; and (7) locating genetic molecules of other plants and organisms.
In a final rejection, dated September 6, 2001, the examiner rejected claim 1 for lack of utility under §101. The examiner found that the claimed ESTs were not supported by a specific and substantial utility. She concluded that the disclosed uses were not specific to the claimed ESTs, but instead were generally applicable to any EST. For example, the examiner noted that any EST may serve as a molecular tag to isolate genetic regions. She also concluded that the claimed ESTs lacked a substantial utility because there was no known use for the proteins produced as final products resulting from processes involving the claimed ESTs.
The examiner stated: “Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a ‘real world’ context of use are not substantial utilities.” The examiner also rejected the claimed application for lack of enablement under § 112, first paragraph. She reasoned that one skilled in the art would not know how to use the claimed ESTs because the ’643 application did not disclose a specific and substantial utility for them.
The Board considered each of Fisher’s seven potential uses but noted that Fisher focused its appeal on only two: (1) use for the identification of polymorphisms; and (2) use as probes or as a source for primers. As to the first, the Board found that the application failed to explain why the claimed ESTs would be useful in detecting polymorphisms in maize plants. Board Decision. The Board reasoned that “[w]ithout knowing any further information in regard to the gene represented by an EST, as here, detection of the presence or absence of a polymorphism provides the barest information in regard to genetic heritage.”
Thus, the Board concluded that Fisher’s asserted uses for the claimed ESTs tended to the “insubstantial use” end of the spectrum between a substantial and an insubstantial utility. The Board also concluded that using the claimed ESTs to isolate nucleic acid molecules of other plants and organisms, which themselves had no known utility, is not a substantial utility. Specifically, the Board noted that Fisher argued that the “claimed ESTs may be useful in searching for promoters that are only active in leaves at the time of anthesis.” The Board found, however, that the application failed to show that the claimed ESTs would be expressed only during anthesis or that they would be capable of isolating a promoter active in maize leaves at the time of anthesis. Additionally, the Board addressed the remaining asserted utilities, highlighting in particular the use of the claimed ESTs to monitor gene expression by measuring the level of mRNA through microarray technology and to serve as molecular markers. The Board found that using the claimed ESTs in screens does not provide a specific benefit because the application fails to provide any teaching regarding how to use the data relating to gene expression. Fisher appealed.
In rendering its opinion, the CAFC declared that:
Regarding the seven uses asserted by Fisher, we observe that each claimed EST uniquely corresponds to the single gene from which it was transcribed (“underlying gene”). As of the filing date of the ’643 application, Fisher admits that the underlying genes have no known functions. Fisher, nevertheless, claims that this fact is irrelevant because the seven asserted uses are not related to the functions of the underlying genes. We are not convinced by this contention. Essentially, the claimed ESTs act as no more than research intermediates that may help scientists to isolate the particular underlying protein-encoding genes and conduct further experimentation on those genes. The overall goal of such experimentation is presumably to understand the maize genome – the functions of the underlying genes, the identity of the encoded proteins, the role those proteins play during anthesis, whether polymorphisms exist, the identity of promoters that trigger protein expression, whether protein expression may be controlled, etc. Accordingly, the claimed ESTs are, in words of the Supreme Court, mere “object[s] of use-testing,” to wit, objects upon which scientific research could be performed with no assurance that anything useful will be discovered in the end. Brenner, 383 U.S. at 535.
…
Moreover, all of Fisher’s asserted uses represent merely hypothetical possibilities, objectives which the claimed ESTs, or any EST for that matter, could possibly achieve, but none for which they have been used in the real world. Focusing on the two uses emphasized by Fisher at oral argument, Fisher maintains that the claimed ESTs could be used to identify polymorphisms or to isolate promoters. Nevertheless, in the face of a utility rejection, Fisher has not presented any evidence, as the Board well noted, showing that the claimed ESTs have been used in either way. That is, Fisher does not present either a single polymorphism or a single promoter, assuming at least one of each exists, actually identified by using the claimed ESTs. Further, Fisher has not shown that a polymorphism or promoter so identified would have a “specific and substantial” use. The Board, in fact, correctly recognized this very deficiency and cited it as one of the reasons for upholding the examiner’s final rejection.
With respect to the remaining asserted uses, there is no disclosure in the specification showing that any of the claimed ESTs were used as a molecular marker on a map of the maize genome. There also is no disclosure establishing that any of the claimed ESTs were used or, for that matter, could be used to control or provide information about gene expression. Significantly, despite the fact that maize leaves produce over two thousand different proteins during anthesis, Fisher failed to show that one of the claimed ESTs translates into a portion of one of those proteins. Fisher likewise did not provide any evidence showing that the claimed ESTs were used to locate genetic molecules in other plants and organisms. What is more, Fisher has not proffered any evidence showing that any such generic molecules would themselves have a specific and substantial utility. Consequently, because Fisher failed to prove that its claimed ESTs can be successfully used in the seven ways disclosed in the ’643 application, we have no choice but to conclude that the claimed ESTs do not have a “substantial” utility under § 101.
The court felt that nothing about Fisher’s alleged uses set the five claimed ESTs apart from the more than 32,000 ESTs disclosed in the ’643 application or indeed from any EST derived from any organism and that Fisher has only disclosed general uses for its claimed ESTs, not specific ones that satisfy § 101.
The court did not agree with the concerns raised by the government and certain amici that allowing EST patents without proof of utility would discourage research, delay scientific discovery, and thwart progress in the “useful Arts” and “Science” stating that Congress did not intend for these practical implications to affect the determination of whether an invention satisfies the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
Judge Rader dissented stating believing that the claimed ESTs indeed have such a utility, at least as research tools in isolating and studying other molecules.
Download Full Opinion Here“>here.
