In re Chakrabarty
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1DissentMiller, Judge
I do not agree that appellant’s claimed microorganisms are within the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and I join in the statement of the board—
We do not believe that Congress intended 35 U.S.C. 101 to encompass living organisms whether they be plants, modified microorganisms (such as bacteria), or modified multicellular organisms (such as mammals).
In In re LeGrice, 49 C.C.P.A. 1124, 1139, 301 F.2d 929, 939, 133 USPQ 365, 374 (1962), this court recognized that, under the Act of May 23, 1930, Pub.L. No. 245, 46 Stat. 376—
The patent law, as shown by the Committee Reports, was extended to plant patents…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The Tungus v. SkovgaardSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Platt v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Bobsee Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Application of Edward Burton LegriceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Federal Trade Commission v. A. P. W. Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.