Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Patenting expressed sequence tags and single nucleotide polymorphisms

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  • Flattmann, G.J. & Kaplan, J.M. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 683–684 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • See, generally Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 US 370 (US 1996).

  • Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

  • 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (2001); Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines.

  • Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines at 20–22.

  • Structural elements in claims often narrow their scope. For instance, a claim that recites “a natural promoter” is limited to a single structure, the promoter found naturally on the chromosome. In contrast, functional elements may give claims a broader scope. For example, “a promoter capable of expression” may include a gene's natural promoter, a different promoter from that species, a viral promoter, a bacterial promoter, etc. Claiming with functional language, however, may risk invoking a “means plus function” claim construction under 35 USC §112 ¶6.

  • In some instances, however, the PTO will reject a more narrowly drafted claim where the claimed species is not supported by the written description.

  • The decision to claim more broadly and wait for a rejection to narrow the scope must be made in light of the recently decided Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 56 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In Festo, scope of the doctrine of equivalents was restricted. The Festo Court held that where an applicant amends a claim for reasons relating to patentability (e.g., in response to a rejection), the amended element in that claim is entitled to no scope of equivalence.

  • Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines at 23–26.

  • Id at 28–30.

  • Id at 34.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Flattmann, G., Kaplan, J. Patenting expressed sequence tags and single nucleotide polymorphisms. Nat Biotechnol 19, 777–779 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/90843

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/90843

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing