On 03/21/2012 03:08 PM, Nathan McCorkle wrote:
> Can anyone here interpret that document? I got bored after a while and didn't finish it.
This part in the opinion, after the syllabus, seems essential to me:
"To put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience
about certain laws of nature; any additional steps
consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already
engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps,
when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of
their parts taken separately. For these reasons we believe that
the steps are not sufficient to transform unpatentable natural
correlations into patentable applications of those regularities."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
0 comments:
Post a Comment