488:
knowledge of the art, or factually misleading" when initially considered by the Office. ... Other cases suggest that on initial evaluation, the Office considered the asserted utility to be inconsistent with known scientific principles or "speculative at best" as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility were actually present in the invention. ... However cast, the underlying finding by the court in these cases was that, based on the factual record of the case, it was clear that the invention could not and did not work as the inventor claimed it did. Indeed, the use of many labels to describe a single problem (e.g., a false assertion regarding utility) has led to some of the confusion that exists today with regard to a rejection based on the "utility" requirement.
522:, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put an end to the requirement: "Congress never intended that the patent laws should displace the police powers of the States, meaning by that term those powers by which the health, good order, peace and general welfare of the community are promoted…we find no basis in section 101 to hold that inventions can be ruled unpatentable for lack of utility simply because they have the capacity to fool some members of the public."(
553:
did not satisfy the utility requirement, because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. The Court ruled, "... a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge
538:
The last utility category is practical or specific utility. According to
Mueller, "to be patentable an invention must have some real-world use." The utility threshold is relatively easy to satisfy for mechanical, electrical, or novelty inventions, because the purpose of the utility requirement is to
478:
Janice
Mueller claims that an inoperable invention may fail to satisfy the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because "an inventor cannot properly describe how to use an inoperable invention...." However, as authority Ms. Mueller's textbook cites to another textbook, Landis on Mechanics of
650:
In 1995, the USPTO published new utility guidelines, which eliminated the "substantial", but retained “specific” and “credible” requirements. In the case of a process of making chemicals, the utility of the process can be established only if a product of this process has a utility. Thus, a process
431:
which renders void grants of privileges which tend to the hurt of trade or are generally inconvenient. Now if a monopoly were allowed in a useless invention other persons would be prevented from improving it or turning it to any account whatever so that combinations of utility might be impeded. It
606:
was not "useful" in the meaning of the patent law, because it had no defined use at the time of the application. "A patent is not a hunting license," the Court stated. It is "not a reward for the search, but compensation for successful conclusion." This standard for utility cannot be met until a
507:
wrote in the Court's decision, that, to be patentable, an invention must be "useful" and must "not be frivolous or injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society". In spite of this ruling however, patents continued to be granted for devices that could be deemed immoral (e.g.
487:
Situations where an invention is found to be "inoperative" and therefore lacking in utility are rare, and rejections maintained solely on this ground by a
Federal court even rarer. In many of these cases, the utility asserted by the applicant was thought to be "incredible in the light of the
379:, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as
681:. If the examiner shows evidence that the invention is not useful, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove utility. The applicant can then submit additional data to support a finding of utility. The invention must possess utility at the time of application.
589:
However, it is not only "mischievous or immoral" inventions, that fase the utility challenge. Oftentimes new chemicals, which are known to be useful as a class, but have not demonstrated a "specific, substantial and credible utility" are denied a patent. The
539:
ensure that the invention works on some minimal level. However, the practical or specific utility requirement for patentability may be more difficult to satisfy for chemical or biological inventions, because of the level of uncertainty in these fields. The
403:
The main reason for having the utility requirement is to prevent issuing patents on things which are speculative and may block useful inventions in the future. In a pharmaceutical context, the utility problem usually arises when there is a
662:(which are “tiny portion of an entire gene that can be used to help identify unknown genes and to map their positions within a genome”), because their only known use at the time of patent application was as a research tool.
677:, the disclosed utility is presumed valid. The patent office bears the burden to disprove utility. The standard the USPTO uses is whether it is more likely than not that it would lack utility from the perspective of a
467:
In considering the requirement of utility for patents, there are three main factors to review: operability of the invention, a beneficial use of the invention, and practical use of the invention.
483:. Section 2173.05(l) has not been part of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure since the 1990s. The most recent pronouncement of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure is 2107.01:
1131:
In re Fisher: Denial of
Patents for ESTs Signals Deeper Problems in the Utility Prong for Patentability. 2007. Minnesota journal of law, science & technology. 8/2, 645. L. Ewing.
626:
518:(dealing with a juice dispenser that arguably deceived the public into believing that the liquid seen in the attached reservoir was that which was being dispensed)). In
554:
which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute." Practical or specific utility is the requirement for an invention to have a particular purpose.
1101:
708:
759:
Bedford v. Hunt, 3 F. Cas. 37 (C.C. Mass. 1817)("The law...does not look to the degree of utility; it simply requires that it shall be capable of use....")
1016:
412:
approval of the drug is not required before a patent application is filed. It suffices to demonstrate that this drug candidate passes some established
583:
503:(1 Mason. 182; 1 Robb, Pat. Cas. 131 Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May Term. 1817.). The utility criterion established by this case is, as Justice
678:
165:
578:
doctrine, which excludes from patentability anything immoral or deceitful. However, in the 1970's after cases establishing patentability of a
842:
The
Patentee's ManualvBeing a Treatise on the Law &practice of Letters Patent, Especially Intended for the Use of Patentees and Inventors
665:
The utility of invention must be demonstrated in the patent application itself. Post application activities cannot be used to prove utility.
527:
480:
346:
394:
expresses a specific, credible, and substantial utility. Rejection by an examiner usually requires documentary evidence establishing a
372:
150:
1180:
986:
920:
891:
803:
778:
719:
408:
on a new drug, but the patent disclosure does not specify (or does not prove) what disease this drug treats. Notably, a full
514:
243:
523:
640:
320:
1024:
540:
869:
862:
845:
714:
456:
440:
207:
186:
135:
586:
and federal courts no longer consider beneficial utility nor the deceitful or immoral qualities of inventions.
448:
380:
360:
339:
248:
155:
1029:
582:
in 1977, and drink machines with decorative reservoirs that did not contain the drink actually dispensed, the
750:
process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter...may obtain a patent...." (emphasis not in original))
659:
572:
the word "useful," therefore, is incorporated into the act in contradistinction to mischievous or immoral.
497:
Beneficial utility became established as a requirement in United States patent law in 1817 as a result of
269:
746:
Arts..." (emphasis not in original)); 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2008) ("Whoever invents or discovers any new and
702:
428:
213:
104:
73:
68:
1133:
In Re Fisher: Denial of
Patents for ESTs Signals Deeper Problems in the Utility Prong for Patentability
427:
A patent for a useless invention is thought by some to be void at common law by others by force of the
742:
U.S. CONST., art. I, §8, cl. 8 (Congress shall have the power "to promote the
Progress of Science and
1164:
830:
499:
78:
622:. These cases denied patentability to chemical intermediates for products, which had no known use.
436:
332:
315:
238:
228:
223:
218:
119:
655:
1075:
697:
674:
631:
563:
391:
191:
99:
94:
619:
615:
982:
916:
887:
799:
774:
611:
595:
591:
574:
This very broad definition survived well into the
Twentieth Century. It was the basis for the
545:
264:
233:
140:
691:
279:
145:
109:
1165:
2107 Guidelines for
Examination of Applications for Compliance with the Utility Requirement
432:
would stand in the way of real inventors and hence be mischievous to the public generally.
387:
305:
284:
274:
566:
required patentable inventions to be "sufficiently useful and important". An 1817 case
33:
1132:
1174:
909:
849:
724:
368:
37:
654:
Another landmark decision related to utility of biological inventions was 2005 case
579:
504:
405:
310:
63:
936:
639:
requirement for pharmaceutical inventions does not require formal approval by the
866:
376:
396:
17:
289:
526:, 185 F.3d 1364, 1367–68, 51 USPQ2d 1700, 1702-03 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see also
170:
1113:
Utility
Examination Guidelines, 60 Fed. Reg. 36,263, 36,264 (July 14, 1995)
644:
413:
831:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
651:
resulting only in products, which have no known use, is not patentable.
603:
550:
114:
1152:
Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. cir. 2005).
475:
The importance of operability as a requirement of claims is disputed.
400:
showing that there is no specific, substantial, and credible utility.
599:
58:
479:
Patent Claim Drafting, which itself cites section 2173.05(l) in the
1065:
Ex parte Murphy, 200 U.S.P.Q. 801 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1977)
409:
1056:
Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, 185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
967:
185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999); 51 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1700
607:"specific benefit exists in currently available form."
508:
gambling devices, see, e.g., Brewer v. Lichtenstein and
419:
One commentator explained in 1853 the rationale against
1076:"REVISED INTERIM UTILITY GUIDELINES TRAINING MATERIALS"
549:(in 1966) held that a novel process for making a known
647:
proof of efficacy, using a known test is sufficient.
627:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
570:(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts) proclaimed that:
908:
1143:Newmann v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
451:. Although it serves a similar purpose as the US
1002:
1000:
998:
128:Patentability requirements and related concepts
981:(3rd ed.). New York: Aspen. p. 236.
886:(3rd ed.). New York: Aspen. p. 245.
773:(3rd ed.). New York: Aspen. p. 235.
709:State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group
1097:
1095:
459:requirements, it is more narrow in practice.
340:
8:
1122:In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
911:Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting
1102:In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
796:Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials
794:Merges, Robert P.; Duffy, John F. (2008).
347:
333:
42:
584:United States Patent and Trademark Office
1052:
1050:
1006:Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966).
958:200 U.S.P.Q. 801 (P.T.O. Bd. App. 1977)
826:66 Fed. Reg. 1092, 1098 (Jan. 5, 2001)
735:
679:person having ordinary skill in the art
297:
256:
199:
178:
127:
86:
50:
45:
798:(4th ed.). New York: LexisNexis.
915:(3rd ed.). Practising Law Inst.
515:Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.
7:
614:, the Court decided two other cases
528:Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
481:Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
524:Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc.
29:Concept in United States patent law
669:Burden of proof during prosecution
151:Inventive step and non-obviousness
25:
1028:. 1790. p. 1. Archived from
824:Utility Examination Guidelines,
822:, 383 U.S. 519 (1966); USPTO,
720:Utility in Canadian patent law
1:
658:. It denied patentability of
641:Food and Drug Administration
371:requirement. As provided by
200:By region / country
1025:University of New Hampshire
977:Mueller, Janice M. (2009).
882:Mueller, Janice M. (2009).
769:Mueller, Janice M. (2009).
541:United States Supreme Court
1197:
949:278 F. 512 (7th Cir. 1922)
863:European Patent Convention
390:guidelines require that a
257:By specific subject matter
31:
907:Faber, Robert C. (1990).
715:Sufficiency of disclosure
457:patentable subject matter
441:Patent Cooperation Treaty
381:perpetual motion machines
208:Patent Cooperation Treaty
187:Sufficiency of disclosure
166:Person skilled in the art
136:Patentable subject matter
1181:United States patent law
449:industrial applicability
361:United States patent law
179:Other legal requirements
156:Industrial applicability
32:Not to be confused with
558:History and development
490:
434:
703:Reduction to practice
660:express sequence tags
602:concluded that a new
594:in this area is 1966
512:) or deceitful (see,
485:
429:Statute of Monopolies
425:
731:Notes and references
598:. In this case, the
865:, see for instance
610:On the same day as
437:European patent law
416:test (see below).
87:Procedural concepts
698:Incredible utility
675:patent prosecution
576:beneficial utility
564:Patent Act of 1790
562:The very first US
493:Beneficial utility
421:useless inventions
392:patent application
192:Unity of invention
937:"Lowell v. Lewis"
820:Brenner v. Manson
612:Brenner v. Manson
596:Brenner v. Manson
592:landmark decision
546:Brenner v. Manson
534:Practical utility
357:
356:
16:(Redirected from
1188:
1153:
1150:
1144:
1141:
1135:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1114:
1111:
1105:
1099:
1090:
1089:
1087:
1085:
1080:
1072:
1066:
1063:
1057:
1054:
1045:
1044:
1042:
1040:
1035:on July 22, 2011
1034:
1021:
1013:
1007:
1004:
993:
992:
974:
968:
965:
959:
956:
950:
947:
941:
940:
933:
927:
926:
914:
904:
898:
897:
879:
873:
859:
853:
839:
833:
816:
810:
809:
791:
785:
784:
766:
760:
757:
751:
740:
692:Diamond v. Diehr
635:clarified, that
463:Utility criteria
388:patent examiners
349:
342:
335:
43:
21:
18:Utility (patent)
1196:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1171:
1170:
1167:(USPTO website)
1161:
1156:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1100:
1093:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1048:
1038:
1036:
1032:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1005:
996:
989:
976:
975:
971:
966:
962:
957:
953:
948:
944:
935:
934:
930:
923:
906:
905:
901:
894:
881:
880:
876:
860:
856:
840:
836:
817:
813:
806:
793:
792:
788:
781:
768:
767:
763:
758:
754:
741:
737:
733:
687:
671:
568:Lowell v. Lewis
560:
536:
530:706.03(a)(II))
510:Ex parte Murphy
500:Lowell v. Lewis
495:
473:
465:
353:
306:Patent analysis
270:Business method
41:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1194:
1192:
1184:
1183:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1160:
1159:External links
1157:
1155:
1154:
1145:
1136:
1124:
1115:
1106:
1091:
1067:
1058:
1046:
1008:
994:
987:
969:
960:
951:
942:
928:
921:
899:
892:
874:
854:
834:
811:
804:
786:
779:
761:
752:
734:
732:
729:
728:
727:
722:
717:
712:
705:
700:
695:
686:
683:
670:
667:
559:
556:
535:
532:
494:
491:
472:
469:
464:
461:
373:35 U.S.C.
355:
354:
352:
351:
344:
337:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
318:
313:
308:
300:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
287:
282:
277:
272:
267:
259:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
246:
241:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
211:
202:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
189:
181:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
168:
163:
158:
153:
148:
143:
138:
130:
129:
125:
124:
123:
122:
117:
112:
107:
102:
97:
89:
88:
84:
83:
82:
81:
76:
71:
66:
61:
53:
52:
48:
47:
34:Utility patent
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1193:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1176:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1149:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1128:
1125:
1119:
1116:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1096:
1092:
1077:
1071:
1068:
1062:
1059:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1003:
1001:
999:
995:
990:
988:9780735578319
984:
980:
973:
970:
964:
961:
955:
952:
946:
943:
938:
932:
929:
924:
922:9780872240070
918:
913:
912:
903:
900:
895:
893:9780735578319
889:
885:
878:
875:
871:
868:
864:
858:
855:
851:
850:public domain
847:
843:
838:
835:
832:
829:
825:
821:
815:
812:
807:
805:9781422417645
801:
797:
790:
787:
782:
780:9780735578319
776:
772:
765:
762:
756:
753:
749:
745:
739:
736:
730:
726:
725:Utility model
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
710:
706:
704:
701:
699:
696:
694:
693:
689:
688:
684:
682:
680:
676:
668:
666:
663:
661:
657:
652:
648:
646:
643:. Instead an
642:
638:
634:
633:
628:
623:
621:
617:
613:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
587:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
557:
555:
552:
548:
547:
542:
533:
531:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
511:
506:
502:
501:
492:
489:
484:
482:
476:
470:
468:
462:
460:
458:
454:
450:
447:use the term
446:
442:
438:
433:
430:
424:
422:
417:
415:
411:
407:
401:
399:
398:
393:
389:
384:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:patentability
366:
362:
350:
345:
343:
338:
336:
331:
330:
328:
327:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
303:
302:
301:
296:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:
278:
276:
273:
271:
268:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
255:
250:
249:United States
247:
245:
242:
240:
237:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
198:
193:
190:
188:
185:
184:
183:
182:
177:
172:
169:
167:
164:
162:
159:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
126:
121:
118:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
92:
91:
90:
85:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:
57:
56:
55:
54:
49:
44:
39:
38:Utility model
35:
27:
19:
1148:
1139:
1127:
1118:
1109:
1082:. Retrieved
1070:
1061:
1037:. Retrieved
1030:the original
1023:
1011:
978:
972:
963:
954:
945:
931:
910:
902:
883:
877:
857:
841:
837:
828:available at
827:
823:
819:
814:
795:
789:
770:
764:
755:
747:
743:
738:
707:
690:
672:
664:
656:In re Fisher
653:
649:
636:
630:
624:
609:
588:
580:slot machine
575:
571:
567:
561:
544:
537:
519:
513:
509:
505:Joseph Story
498:
496:
486:
477:
474:
466:
452:
444:
435:
426:
420:
418:
406:patent claim
402:
395:
385:
364:
358:
311:Pirate Party
160:
141:Inventorship
120:Infringement
64:Patent claim
26:
632:In re Brana
471:Operability
443:instead of
397:prima facie
244:Netherlands
100:Prosecution
95:Application
1084:August 14,
979:Patent Law
884:Patent Law
867:Article 57
861:Under the
771:Patent Law
620:In re Joly
616:In re Kirk
520:Juicy Whip
377:§ 101
265:Biological
105:Opposition
46:Patent law
1039:August 4,
280:Insurance
214:Australia
171:Prior art
115:Licensing
110:Valuation
79:Criticism
74:Economics
51:Overviews
1175:Category
1017:"Sec. 1"
685:See also
645:in vitro
625:In 1955
414:in vitro
321:Glossary
316:Category
298:See also
285:Software
275:Chemical
844:, 1853
673:During
637:utility
604:steroid
551:steroid
453:utility
445:utility
365:utility
234:Germany
161:Utility
146:Novelty
69:History
985:
919:
890:
802:
777:
748:useful
744:useful
600:SCOTUS
375:
229:Europe
219:Canada
59:Patent
1079:(PDF)
1033:(PDF)
1020:(PDF)
846:p. 25
367:is a
239:Japan
224:China
210:(PCT)
1086:2023
1041:2023
983:ISBN
917:ISBN
888:ISBN
818:See
800:ISBN
775:ISBN
618:and
455:and
439:and
423:as:
386:The
870:EPC
629:in
543:in
410:FDA
359:In
290:Tax
36:or
1177::
1094:^
1049:^
1022:.
997:^
383:.
363:,
1104:.
1088:.
1043:.
991:.
939:.
925:.
896:.
872:.
852:)
848:(
808:.
783:.
348:e
341:t
334:v
40:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.