<div dir="ltr">PTAB decisions (including non-precedential PTAB decisions) are binding to this extent. The agency has to follow them or explain the difference, and that explanation has to reflect recognition that the agency is changing its mind. Two pretty good cases: <i>Fox Television v FCC</i>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6114044271141802936">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6114044271141802936</a> and <span id="gmail-YurmxUDr6fsJ"><i>Atchison, Topeka & SF Ry. Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade</i></span>, 412 US 800 (1973), <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1991381326164722099">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1991381326164722099</a> There might be other cases in <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=3258694" target="_blank">https://ssrn.com/abstract=3258694</a> (the article will explain <b>everything</b> you could ever want to know about the binding effect of PTAB decisions).
<div class="gmail-gs_rs"></div><div class="gmail-gs_fl gmail-gs_flb"><a class="gmail-gs_or_sav gmail-gs_or_btn" role="button"></a></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:56\u202fPM Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg-1610710041452138701">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_-1610710041452138701WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Need case law:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:yellow">I\u2019d like to avoid the expense and time of having to appeal to the Board.<span>
</span>So, does anyone have:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="m_-1610710041452138701MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="background:yellow">Precedential case law on point holding that methods of making a genus of products have sufficient utility
where at least one product belonging to the genus has utility; and/or<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="m_-1610710041452138701MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="background:yellow">Citable law or rule that says Examiner\u2019s must follow Board decisions that are directly on point even
if the Board decision is non-precedential (I vaguely recall Boundy or someone else say something about the MPEP is binding on Examiners but not necessary applicants\u2026 thus I wonder if there is something similar with Board decisions\u2026)<u></u><u></u></span></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Facts/Background:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Claims are to a method of making a genus of products.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Some products belonging to the genus have all the utilities, i.e., specific, substantial, and credible, etc.<span>
</span>Some products belonging to the genus do not.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>While this is a biotech case an analogy can be made to, e.g., a method of joining links together to make a chain.<span>
</span>Some formed chains have utility, some might not.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>My specific claim is a method of joining together pieces of DNA into a larger single DNA molecule.<span>
</span>That is, it is a generic recombinant DNA technique that has advantages (e.g., faster/more efficient and one-pot reaction mixture) over prior art techniques.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>There is a specific <span class="m_-1610710041452138701SpellE">
PTAB</span> appeal decision that is directly on point but non-precedential, Ex <span class="m_-1610710041452138701SpellE">
parte</span> Lindstrom, 431, Appeal 2018-000914, Application 14/320 (<span class="m_-1610710041452138701SpellE">PTAB</span> Feb 21, 2019), which I previously pointed to in the last response.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The Examiner maintained lack of utility rejection insisting that the resulting DNA molecules must be limited to those which have specific, substantial, and credible utility\u2026 and points to all the
BS crap in the MPEP, Brenner v. Manson, In re Fisher, etc.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I understand Brenner v. Manson held lack of utility because the method was to making a specific thing, which specific think had no known utility.<span>
</span>The claims in In re Fisher were to genetic markers, which the product claims thereto lacked utility because the genetic markers all by themselves as products do not have any use.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>But here the claims are to a recombinant DNA method\u2014recombinant DNA methods in and of themselves have substantial, specific, and credible utility.<span>
</span>In fact, the Board in Lindstrom said:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span>There can be no reasonable dispute that a general method that joins two nucleic acids, whether by restriction enzyme cleavage followed by ligation with DNA ligase, fusion
polymerase chain reaction, or the instantly claimed Cas9 process, has specific, substantial, and credible utilities immediately recognizable by the ordinary molecular biologist for use in cloning and other procedures.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>But the Examiner is being an *ss and asserts that the resulting DNA molecules must be limited to specific DNA molecules that have utility themselves (meaning the resulting DNA molecules must be limited
to specific DNA sequences, which is completely absurd).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/" target="_blank"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">Suzannah
K. Sundby</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif">
<b><span style="color:rgb(0,0,204)">|</span></b> Partner<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="http://www.canadylortz.com/" target="_blank"><u><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">canady
+ lortz</span></u><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">LLP</span></span></u></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,204)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif">1050 30th Street, NW<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif">Washington, DC 20007<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4pt"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif">T: 202.486.8020<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif">F: 202.540.8020<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:4pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="mailto:suzannah@canadylortz.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">suzannah@canadylortz.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,204)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-width:medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor rgb(0,0,204);padding:0in 0in 6pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:medium;padding:0in">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="http://www.canadylortz.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;text-decoration:none">www.canadylortz.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,204)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:7pt;font-family:"Century Gothic",sans-serif;color:rgb(127,127,127)">Confidentiality Notice:
<span> </span>This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.
<span> </span>It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
<span> </span>This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.
<span> </span>If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.
<span> </span>If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10pt"><font size="2"><b><span><span><span><span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,127,160);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:12px"><font size="2"><b><a border="0" href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" style="color:rgb(102,127,160);text-decoration:none;outline:none;background:transparent 0px 0px" target="_blank"><img alt="" height="92" width="73" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU"> <img alt="Cambridge Technology Law LLC" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/keynectup/PROFILE/9b92f0cd-ecec-44c8-8932-60e8dc63709f/thumbnail.jpg?1455027242552" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor; outline: 0px;" height="96" border="0" width="96"><br></a></b></font></p><font size="2"><b>
</b><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property
strategists</span></a></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">
</span><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470" target="_blank">Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext"><br></span></a></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">Click here to add me to your
contacts.</span></a></p><b>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:700">David Boundy</span></a></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span></span></span></p></b></font><p></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><a href="mailto:dboundy@cambridgetechlaw.com" target="_blank">DBoundy@cambridgetechlaw.com</a> / <a href="tel:%2B1%206464729737" value="+16464729737" target="_blank">+1 646.472.9737</a></span></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><span style="font-weight:700">Cambridge Technology Law LLC</span></span><br>686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge MA 02139<br><a href="http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com" target="_blank">http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy</a><br></span></p>mailing address<div>PO Box 590638<br></div><div>Newton MA 02459<br></div></div></div><font size="1"><span style="line-height:150%;font-family:"Times New Roman""><br>This communication is
a confidential attorney-client communication intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.<span> </span>Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.<span> </span>Any legal, business or tax information
contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not
intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute
for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid legal or other adverse
consequences to the recipient. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, disclose or distribute this
communication or attribute to the Firm any information contained in this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please advise
the sender by replying to this message or by telephone, and then promptly
delete it.</span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>