In re Fisher
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
421 F.3d 1365 (2005)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Dane Fisher and a colleague (collectively “Fisher”) (plaintiff) submitted their ‘643 patent application related to five gene sequences, referred to as “expressed sequence tags,” (“ESTs”), which encoded proteins in maize plants. The ‘643 application disclosed that the five ESTs could be used in (1) serving as a molecular marker for mapping the entire maize genome, (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 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. The application examiner rejected Fisher’s claims for lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Fisher appealed to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”), which affirmed the examiner’s rejection. Fisher appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Michel, J.)
Dissent (Rader, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.